0000065984etr:EntergyLouisianaMemberetr:VariableInterestEntityNotesPayableThreePointNinetyTwoPercentSeriesHDueFebruaryTwoThousandTwentyOneMember2020-12-310000065984etr:FinancialTransmissionRightsFTRsMemberus-gaap:NondesignatedMemberetr:PrepaymentsAndOtherMemberetr:EntergyTexasMember2019-12-31
Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549


FORM 10-K


(Mark One)
X
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2020
OR

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2017
OR
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13

OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from ____________ to ____________


Commission
File Number
Registrant, State of Incorporation or Organization, Address of Principal Executive Offices, Telephone Number, and IRS Employer Identification No.

Commission
File Number
Registrant, State of Incorporation or Organization, Address of Principal Executive Offices, Telephone Number, and IRS Employer Identification No.
1-11299
1-11299ENTERGY CORPORATION1-35747ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC
(a Delaware corporation)
639 Loyola Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
Telephone (504) 576-4000
72-1229752
1-35747

ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC
(a Texas limited liability company)
1600 Perdido Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
Telephone (504) 670-3700
82-2212934
72-122975282-2212934
1-10764
1-10764ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC1-34360ENTERGY TEXAS, INC.
(an Arkansas corporation)a Texas limited liability company)
425 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Telephone (501) 377-4000
71-0005900
1-34360

ENTERGY TEXAS, INC.
(a Texas corporation)
10055 Grogans Mill Road
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
Telephone (409) 981-2000
61-1435798
83-191866861-1435798
1-32718

1-32718ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC1-09067SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
(a Texas limited liability company)
4809 Jefferson Highway
Jefferson, Louisiana 70121
Telephone (504) 576-4000
47-4469646
1-09067

SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
(an Arkansas corporation)
1340 Echelon Parkway
Jackson, Mississippi 39213
Telephone (601) 368-5000
72-0752777
47-446964672-0752777
1-31508

1-31508ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.LLC
(a Mississippi corporation)Texas limited liability company)
308 East Pearl Street
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Telephone (601) 368-5000
64-0205830
83-1950019




Table of Contents




Table of Contents
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

RegistrantTitle of ClassTrading
Symbol
Name of Each Exchange
on Which Registered
RegistrantTitle of Class
Name of Each Exchange
on Which Registered
Entergy CorporationCommon Stock, $0.01 Par Value – 180,770,383 shares outstanding at January 31, 2018
ETR
New York Stock Exchange Inc.
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.
Common Stock, $0.01 Par ValueETRNYSE Chicago, Inc.
 
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.Mortgage Bonds, 4.90% Series due December 2052New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
Mortgage Bonds, 4.75% Series due June 2063New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
LLCMortgage Bonds, 4.875% Series due September 2066EAINew York Stock Exchange Inc.
 
Entergy Louisiana, LLCMortgage Bonds, 5.25% Series due July 2052New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
Mortgage Bonds, 4.70% Series due June 2063New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
Mortgage Bonds, 4.875% Series due September 2066ELCNew York Stock Exchange Inc.
 
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.LLCMortgage Bonds, 4.90% Series due October 2066EMPNew York Stock Exchange Inc.
 
Entergy New Orleans, LLCMortgage Bonds, 5.0% Series due December 2052ENJNew York Stock Exchange Inc.
Mortgage Bonds, 5.50% Series due April 2066ENONew York Stock Exchange Inc.
 
Entergy Texas, Inc.Mortgage Bonds, 5.625%5.375% Series due June 2064A Preferred Stock, Cumulative, No Par Value (Liquidation Value $25 Per Share)ETI/PRNew York Stock Exchange Inc.


Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
RegistrantTitle of Class
RegistrantTitle of Class
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.Preferred Stock, Cumulative, $100 Par Value
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.Preferred Stock, Cumulative, $100 Par Value
Entergy Texas, Inc.Common Stock, no par value





Table of Contents
Indicate by check mark if the registrants are well-known seasoned issuers, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
YesNo
Entergy CorporationYesüNo
Entergy Arkansas, LLCü
Entergy Corporationü
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.ü
Entergy Louisiana, LLCü
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.LLCü
Entergy New Orleans, LLCü
Entergy Texas, Inc.
ü
ü
System Energy Resources, Inc.ü


Indicate by check mark if the registrants are not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
YesNo
Entergy CorporationYesNoü
Entergy Arkansas, LLCü
Entergy Corporationü
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.ü
Entergy Louisiana, LLCü
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.LLCü
Entergy New Orleans, LLCü
Entergy Texas, Inc.ü
System Energy Resources, Inc.ü


Indicate by check mark whether the registrants (1) have filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrants were required to file such reports), and (2) have been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ No o


Indicate by check mark whether the registrants have submitted electronically and posted on Entergy’s corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant wasregistrants were required to submit and post such files).  Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrants’ knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  [ü]



Indicate by check mark whether each registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


Large
accelerated
filer
Accelerated Filer
Accelerated
filer

Filer
Non-
accelerated
filer
Non-accelerated Filer
Smaller

reporting

company
Emerging

growth

company
Entergy Corporationü
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.LLCü
Entergy Louisiana, LLCü
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.LLCü
Entergy New Orleans, LLCü
Entergy Texas, Inc.ü
System Energy Resources, Inc.ü




Table of Contents
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrants have elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. o


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.

Entergy Corporation
Entergy Arkansas, LLC0
Entergy Louisiana, LLC0
Entergy Mississippi, LLC0
Entergy New Orleans, LLC0
Entergy Texas, Inc.0
System Energy Resources, Inc.0

Indicate by check mark whether the registrants are shell companies (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.)  Yes o No þ


Common Stock OutstandingOutstanding at January 29, 2021
Entergy Corporation($0.01 par value)200,479,995

System Energy Resources, Inc. meets the requirements set forth in General Instruction I(1) of Form 10-K and is therefore filing this Form 10-K with reduced disclosure as allowed in General Instruction I(2).  System Energy Resources, Inc. is reducing its disclosure by not including Part III, Items 10 through 13 in its Form 10-K.


The aggregate market value of Entergy Corporation Common Stock, $0.01 Par Value, held by non-affiliates as of the end of the second quarter of 20172020 was $13.8$18.8 billion based on the reported last sale price of $76.77$93.81 per share for such stock on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2017.2020.  Entergy Corporation is the sole holder of the common stock of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc., and System Energy Resources, Inc.  Entergy Corporation is the direct and indirect holder of the common membership interests of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, which is the sole holder of the common membership interests of Entergy Arkansas, LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, LLC, and Entergy New Orleans, LLC.


DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE


Portions of the Proxy Statement of Entergy Corporation to be filed in connection with its Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be held May 4, 2018,7, 2021, are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.



Table of Contents





























(Page left blank intentionally)





Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEC Form 10-K Reference NumberPage Number
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Part II. Item 7.
Part II. Item 6.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Notes to Financial Statements
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Entergy’s Business
Part I. Item 1.
Part I. Item 1.
Part I. Item 1.
i

Table of Contents
Part I. Item 1A.
Unresolved Staff CommentsPart I. Item 1B.None

i

Table of Contents

Entergy Arkansas, Inc.LLC and Subsidiaries
Part II. Item 7.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 6.
Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Part II. Item 7.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 6.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Part II. Item 7.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 6.
Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Part II. Item 7.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 6.
Entergy Texas, Inc.Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Part II. Item 7.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.

ii

Table of Contents

Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 6.
System Energy Resources, Inc.Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Part II. Item 7.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 6.
Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Part II. Item 7.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 6.
Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Part II. Item 7.
Part II. Item 8.
ii

Table of Contents
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 6.
System Energy Resources, Inc.
Part II. Item 7.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 6.
Part I. Item 2.
Part I. Item 3.
Part I. Item 4.
Part I. and Part III. Item 10.
Part II. Item 5.
Part II. Item 6.
Part II. Item 7.
Part II. Item 7A.
Part II. Item 8.
Part II. Item 9.
Part II. Item 9A.
Part II. Item 9A.
Part III. Item 10.
Part III. Item 11.
Part III. Item 12.
Part III. Item 13.
Part III. Item 14.
Part IV. Item 15.
Part IV. Item 16.


This combined Form 10-K is separately filed by Entergy Corporation and its six “Registrant Subsidiaries:” Entergy Arkansas, Inc.,LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,LLC, Entergy New Orleans, LLC, Entergy Texas, Inc., and System Energy Resources, Inc.  Information contained herein relating to any individual company is filed by such company on its own behalf.  Each company makes representations only as to itself and makes no other representations whatsoever as to any other company.


The report should be read in its entirety as it pertains to each respective reporting company.  No one section of the report deals with all aspects of the subject matter.  Separate Item 6, 7, and 8 sections are
iii

Table of Contents
provided for each reporting company, except for the Notes to the financial statements.  The Notes to the financial statements for all of the reporting companies are combined.  All Items other than 6, 7, and 8 are combined for the reporting companies.

iv
iii

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION


In this combined report and from time to time, Entergy Corporation and the Registrant Subsidiaries each makes statements as a registrant concerning its expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, projections, strategies, and future events or performance.  Such statements are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  Words such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “project,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect,” “estimate,” “continue,” “potential,” “plan,” “predict,” “forecast,” and other similar words or expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements but are not the only means to identify these statements.  Although each of these registrants believes that these forward-looking statements and the underlying assumptions are reasonable, it cannot provide assurance that they will prove correct.  Any forward-looking statement is based on information current as of the date of this combined report and speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made.  Except to the extent required by the federal securities laws, these registrants undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.


Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties.  There are factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements, including (a) those factors discussed or incorporated by reference in Item 1A. Risk Factors, (b) those factors discussed or incorporated by reference in Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis, and (c) the following factors (in addition to others described elsewhere in this combined report and in subsequent securities filings):


resolution of pending and future rate cases and related litigation, formula rate proceedings and related negotiations, including various performance-based rate discussions, Entergy’s utility supply plan, and recovery of fuel and purchased power costs;costs, as well as delays in cost recovery resulting from these proceedings;
continuing long-term risks and uncertainties associated with the termination of the System Agreement in 2016, including the potential absence of federal authority to resolve certain issues among the Utility operating companies and their retail regulators;
regulatory and operating challenges and uncertainties and economic risks associated with the Utility operating companies’ participation in MISO, including the benefits of continued MISO participation, the effect of current or projected MISO market rules and market and system conditions in the MISO markets, the allocation of MISO system transmission upgrade costs, the MISO-wide base rate of return on equity allowed or any MISO-related charges and credits required by the FERC, and the effect of planning decisions that MISO makes with respect to future transmission investments by the Utility operating companies;
changes in utility regulation, including with respect to retail and wholesale competition, the ability to recover net utility assets and other potential stranded costs, and the application of more stringent return on equity criteria, transmission reliability requirements or market power criteria by the FERC or the U.S. Department of Justice;
changes in the regulation or regulatory oversight of Entergy’s nuclear generating facilities and nuclear materials and fuel, including with respect to the planned potential, or actual shutdown and sale of each of the nuclear generating facilities owned or operated by Entergy Wholesale Commodities, and the effects of new or existing safety or environmental concerns regarding nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel;
resolution of pending or future applications, and related regulatory proceedings and litigation, for license renewals or modifications or other authorizations required of nuclear generating facilities and the effect of public and political opposition on these applications, regulatory proceedings, and litigation;
the performance of and deliverability of power from Entergy’s generation resources, including the capacity factors at Entergy’s nuclear generating facilities;
increases in costs and capital expenditures that could result from changing regulatory requirements, emerging operating and industry issues, and the commitment of substantial human and capital resources required for the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of Entergy’s nuclear generating facilities;
Entergy’s ability to develop and execute on a point of view regarding future prices of electricity, natural gas, and other energy-related commodities;
v

Table of Contents
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION (Continued)

prices for power generated by Entergy’s merchant generating facilities and the ability to hedge, meet credit support requirements for hedges, sell power forward or otherwise reduce the market price risk associated with those facilities, including the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants, especially in light of the planned shutdown orand sale of each of these nuclear plants;
the prices and availability of fuel and power Entergy must purchase for its Utility customers, and Entergy’s ability to meet credit support requirements for fuel and power supply contracts;
volatility and changes in markets for electricity, natural gas, uranium, emissions allowances, and other energy-related commodities, and the effect of those changes on Entergy and its customers;

iv

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION (Continued)

changes in law resulting from federal or state energy legislation or legislation subjecting energy derivatives used in hedging and risk management transactions to governmental regulation;
changes in environmental laws and regulations, agency positions or associated litigation, including requirements for reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, greenhouse gases, mercury, particulate matter and other regulated air emissions, heat and other regulated air anddischarges to water, emissions, requirements for waste management and disposal and for the remediation of contaminated sites, wetlands protection and permitting, and changes in costs of compliance with these environmental laws and regulations;
changes in laws and regulations, agency positions, or associated litigation related to protected species and associated critical habitat designations;
the effects of changes in federal, state, or local laws and regulations, and other governmental actions or policies, including changes in monetary, fiscal, tax, environmental, trade/tariff, domestic purchase requirements, or energy policies;
the effects of full or partial shutdowns of the federal government or delays in obtaining government or regulatory actions or decisions;
uncertainty regarding the establishment of interim or permanent sites for spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste storage and disposal and the level of spent fuel and nuclear waste disposal fees charged by the U.S. government or other providers related to such sites;
variations in weather and the occurrence of hurricanes and other storms and disasters, including uncertainties associated with efforts to remediate the effects of hurricanes (including from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta), ice storms, or other weather events and the recovery of costs associated with restoration, including accessing funded storm reserves, federal and local cost recovery mechanisms, securitization, and insurance;insurance, as well as any related unplanned outages;
the risk that an incident at any nuclear generation facility in the U.S. could lead to the assessment of significant retrospective assessments and/or retrospective insurance premiums as a result of Entergy’s participation in a secondary financial protection system, a utility industry mutual insurance company, and industry self-insurance programs;
effects of climate change, including the potential for increases in extreme weather events and sea levels or coastal land and wetland loss;
changes in the quality and availability of water supplies and the related regulation of water use and diversion;
Entergy’s ability to manage its capital projects, including completion of projects timely and within budget and to obtain the anticipated performance or other benefits, and its operation and maintenance costs;
Entergy’s ability to purchase and sell assets at attractive prices and on other attractive terms;
the economic climate, and particularly economic conditions in Entergy’s Utility service area and the Northeastnorthern United States and events and circumstances that could influence economic conditions in those areas, including power prices, and the risk that anticipated load growth may not materialize;
changes to federal income tax reform,laws and regulations, including the enactmentcontinued impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and its intended and unintended consequences on financial results and future cash flows, including the potential impact to credit ratings, which may affect Entergy’s ability to borrow funds or increase the cost of borrowing in the future;flows;
the effects of Entergy’s strategies to reduce tax payments, especially in light of federal income tax reform;payments;
changes in the financial markets and regulatory requirements for the issuance of securities, particularly as they affect access to capital and Entergy’s ability to refinance existing securities, execute share repurchase programs, and fund investments and acquisitions;

vi

Table of Contents
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION (Concluded)

actions of rating agencies, including changes in the ratings of debt and preferred stock, changes in general corporate ratings, and changes in the rating agencies’ ratings criteria;
changes in inflation and interest rates;
the effecteffects of litigation and government investigations or proceedings;
changes in technology, including with respect(i) Entergy’s ability to implement new or emerging technologies, (ii) the impact of changes relating to new, developing, or alternative sources of generation such as distributed energy and energy storage, renewable energy, energy efficiency, demand side management and other measures that reduce load;load and government policies incentivizing development of the foregoing, and (iii) competition from other companies offering products and services to Entergy’s customers based on new or emerging technologies or alternative sources of generation;
Entergy’s ability to effectively formulate and implement plans to reduce its carbon emission rate and aggregate carbon emissions, including its commitment to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and the potential impact on its business of attempting to achieve such objectives;
the effects, including increased security costs, of threatened or actual terrorism, cyber-attacks or data security breaches, natural or man-made electromagnetic pulses that affect transmission or generation infrastructure, accidents, and war or a catastrophic event such as a nuclear accident or a natural gas pipeline explosion;
the effects of a global event or pandemic, such as the COVID-19 global pandemic, including economic and societal disruptions; volatility in the capital markets (and any related increased cost of capital or any inability to access the capital markets or draw on available bank credit facilities); reduced demand for electricity, particularly from commercial and industrial customers; increased or unrecoverable costs; supply chain, vendor, and contractor disruptions; delays in completion of capital or other construction projects, maintenance, and other operations activities, including prolonged or delayed outages; impacts to Entergy’s workforce availability, health, or safety; increased cybersecurity risks as a result of many employees telecommuting; increased late or uncollectible customer payments; regulatory delays; executive orders affecting, or increased regulation of, Entergy’s business; changes in credit ratings or outlooks as a result of any of the foregoing; or other adverse impacts on Entergy’s ability to execute on its business strategies and initiatives or, more generally, on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity;
Entergy’s ability to attract and retain talented management, directors, and employees with specialized skills;
Entergy’s ability to attract, retain, and manage an appropriately qualified workforce;
changes in accounting standards and corporate governance;
declines in the market prices of marketable securities and resulting funding requirements and the effects on benefits costs for Entergy’s defined benefit pension and other postretirement benefit plans;
future wage and employee benefit costs, including changes in discount rates and returns on benefit plan assets;
changes in decommissioning trust fund values or earnings or in the timing of, requirements for, or cost to decommission Entergy’s nuclear plant sites and the implementation of decommissioning of such sites following shutdown;


v

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION (Concluded)

the decision to cease merchant power generation at all Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants by mid-2022, including the implementation of the planned shutdowns and sales of Pilgrim, Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, and Palisades;
the effectiveness of Entergy’s risk management policies and procedures and the ability and willingness of its counterparties to satisfy their financial and performance commitments;
the potential for the factors that couldlisted herein to lead to the impairment of long-lived assets; and
theEntergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to successfully execute on their business strategies, including their ability to complete strategic transactions that Entergy may undertake, including mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, or restructurings, regulatory or other limitations imposed as a result of any such strategic transaction, and the success of the business following any such strategic transaction.

undertake.
vi
vii

Table of Contents

DEFINITIONS


Certain abbreviations or acronyms used in the text and notes are defined below:
Abbreviation or AcronymTerm
AFUDCAllowance for Funds Used During Construction
ALJAdministrative Law Judge
ANO 1 and 2Units 1 and 2 of Arkansas Nuclear One (nuclear), owned by Entergy Arkansas
APSCArkansas Public Service Commission
ASLBAtomic Safety and Licensing Board, the board within the NRC that conducts hearings and performs other regulatory functions that the NRC authorizes
ASUAccounting Standards Update issued by the FASB
BoardBoard of Directors of Entergy Corporation
CajunCajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
capacity factorActual plant output divided by maximum potential plant output for the period
City CouncilCouncil of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana
COVID-19The novel coronavirus disease declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in March 2020
D.C. CircuitU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
DOEUnited States Department of Energy
EntergyEntergy Corporation and its direct and indirect subsidiaries
Entergy CorporationEntergy Corporation, a Delaware corporation
Entergy Gulf States, Inc.Predecessor company for financial reporting purposes to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that included the assets and business operations of both Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas
Entergy Gulf States LouisianaEntergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., a Louisiana limited liability company formally created as part of the jurisdictional separation of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. and the successor company to Entergy Gulf States, Inc. for financial reporting purposes.  The term is also used to refer to the Louisiana jurisdictional business of Entergy Gulf States, Inc., as the context requires. Effective October 1, 2015, the business of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana was combined with Entergy Louisiana.
Entergy LouisianaEntergy Louisiana, LLC, a Texas limited liability company formally created as part of the combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the company formerly known as Entergy Louisiana, LLC (Old Entergy Louisiana) into a single public utility company and the successor to Old Entergy Louisiana for financial reporting purposes.
Entergy TexasEntergy Texas, Inc., a Texas corporation formally created as part of the jurisdictional separation of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.  The term is also used to refer to the Texas jurisdictional business of Entergy Gulf States, Inc., as the context requires.
Entergy Wholesale CommoditiesEntergy’s non-utility business segment primarily comprised of the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants, the ownership of interests in non-nuclear power plants, and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating power plants to wholesale customers
EPAUnited States Environmental Protection Agency
ERCOTElectric Reliability Council of Texas
FASBFinancial Accounting Standards Board
FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
FitzPatrickJames A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (nuclear), previously owned by an Entergy subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment, which was sold in March 2017
Grand GulfUnit No. 1 of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (nuclear), 90% owned or leased by System Energy

viiviii

Table of Contents

DEFINITIONS (Continued)


Abbreviation or AcronymTerm
GWhGigawatt-hour(s), which equals one million kilowatt-hours
IndependenceIndependence Steam Electric Station (coal), owned 16% by Entergy Arkansas, 25% by Entergy Mississippi, and 7% by Entergy Power, LLC
Indian Point 2Unit 2 of Indian Point Energy Center (nuclear), owned by an Entergy subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment, which ceased power production in April 2020
Indian Point 3Unit 3 of Indian Point Energy Center (nuclear), owned by an Entergy subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment
IRSInternal Revenue Service
ISOIndependent System Operator
kVKilovolt
kWKilowatt, which equals one thousand watts
kWhKilowatt-hour(s)
LDEQLouisiana Department of Environmental Quality
LPSCLouisiana Public Service Commission
Mcf1,000 cubic feet of gas
MISOMidcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., a regional transmission organization
MMBtuOne million British Thermal Units
MPSCMississippi Public Service Commission
MWMegawatt(s), which equals one thousand kilowatts
MWhMegawatt-hour(s)
Nelson Unit 6Unit No. 6 (coal) of the Nelson Steam Electric Generating Station, 70% of which is co-owned by Entergy Louisiana (57.5%) and Entergy Texas (42.5%) and 10.9% of which is owned by an Entergy subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment
Net debt to net capital ratioGross debt less cash and cash equivalents divided by total capitalization less cash and cash equivalents
Net MW in operationInstalled capacity owned and operated
NRCNuclear Regulatory Commission
NYPANew York Power Authority
PalisadesPalisades Nuclear Plant (nuclear), owned by an Entergy subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment
Parent & OtherThe portions of Entergy not included in the Utility or Entergy Wholesale Commodities segments, primarily consisting of the activities of the parent company, Entergy Corporation
PilgrimPilgrim Nuclear Power Station (nuclear), previously owned by an Entergy subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment, which ceased power production in May 2019 and was sold in August 2019
PPAPurchased power agreement or power purchase agreement
PRPPotentially responsible party (a person or entity that may be responsible for remediation of environmental contamination)
PUCTPublic Utility Commission of Texas

ix

Table of Contents
DEFINITIONS (Concluded)

Abbreviation or AcronymTerm
Registrant SubsidiariesEntergy Arkansas, Inc.,LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,LLC, Entergy New Orleans, LLC, Entergy Texas, Inc., and System Energy Resources, Inc.

viii

Table of Contents

DEFINITIONS (Concluded)

Abbreviation or AcronymTerm
River BendRiver Bend Station (nuclear), owned by Entergy Louisiana
RTORegional transmission organization
SECSecurities and Exchange Commission
System AgreementAgreement, effective January 1, 1983, as modified, among the Utility operating companies relating to the sharing of generating capacity and other power resources. The agreement terminated effective August 2016.
System EnergySystem Energy Resources, Inc.
TWhTerawatt-hour(s), which equals one billion kilowatt-hours
Unit Power Sales AgreementAgreement, dated as of June 10, 1982, as amended and approved by the FERC, among Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy, relating to the sale of capacity and energy from System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf
UtilityEntergy’s business segment that generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electric power, with a small amount of natural gas distribution
Utility operating companiesEntergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas
Vermont YankeeVermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (nuclear), previously owned by an Entergy subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment, which ceased power production in December 2014 and was disposed of in January 2019
Waterford 3Unit No. 3 (nuclear) of the Waterford Steam Electric Station, 100% owned or leased by Entergy Louisiana
weather-adjusted usageElectric usage excluding the effects of deviations from normal weather
White BluffWhite Bluff Steam Electric Generating Station, 57% owned by Entergy Arkansas



ix
x

Table of Contents



























(Page left blank intentionally)



x

Table of Contents

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS


Entergy operates primarily through two business segments: Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.


The Utility business segment includes the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric power in portions of Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, including the City of New Orleans; and operation of a small natural gas distribution business.
The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants located in the northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also provides services to other nuclear power plant owners and owns interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers. See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” below for discussion of the operation and planned shutdown orand sale of each of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.


Following are the percentages of Entergy’s consolidated revenues generated by its operating segments and the percentage of total assets held by them. Net income or loss generated by the operating segments is discussed in the sections that follow.
 % of Revenue% of Total Assets
Segment202020192018202020192018
Utility91 88 87 96 96 93 
Entergy Wholesale Commodities12 13 11 
Parent & Other (a)— — — (3)(4)(4)
 % of Revenue % of Total Assets
Segment201720162015 201720162015
Utility85
83
82
 92
89
86
Entergy Wholesale Commodities15
17
18
 12
15
18
Parent & Other


 (4)(4)(4)


See Note 13 to the financial statements for further financial information regarding Entergy’s business segments.

(a)Parent & Other includes eliminations, which are primarily intersegment activity.


The COVID-19 Pandemic


The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures to control it have adversely affected economic activity and conditions worldwide and have affected the demand for the products and services of many businesses in Entergy’s service area. Entergy experienced a decline in sales volume in 2020 compared to 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the commercial and industrial sectors. In addition, Entergy experienced negative changes to its customers’ payment patterns and its operating cash flow activity in 2020 compared to 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These negative changes include an increase in uncollectible accounts.

Entergy provides critical services to its customers and has implemented its comprehensive incident response plan, which contemplates major events such as storms or pandemics. Entergy’s focus during the COVID-19 pandemic has been on the safety and wellness of its employees; providing safe, reliable service for its customers; analyzing and addressing the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic; and continuing its plans for the future. Entergy implemented precautionary measures for safety on and off the job for employees and contractors working at plants and in the field and implemented telecommuting practices for employees who can work from home. Entergy temporarily suspended service disconnections for customers and is working with regulators to address routine and non-routine matters and allow continuation of capital spending plans. The Utility operating companies have received accounting orders to defer costs associated with COVID-19. To date, Entergy has not had material effects to its major projects or capital spending plans. Entergy is working with suppliers and contractors for continued availability of resources, equipment, and supplies to keep operations and major projects going forward and on schedule. Entergy implemented expense-related spending reductions in 2020, which did not affect safety or service reliability, in order to offset some of the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
1

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Although Entergy has taken these actions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, uncertainty exists regarding the full depth and length of the effects of COVID-19 on Entergy’s sales volume, revenue, collections and cash flows, expenses, liquidity, and capital needs. Entergy will continue to monitor actively the COVID-19 pandemic and related developments affecting its workforce, customers, suppliers, operations, and financial condition.

Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta

In August and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, including New Orleans, Texas, and to a lesser extent, in Arkansas and Mississippi. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of the electrical system damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $2.4 billion, including approximately $1.98 billion in capital costs and approximately $420 million in non-capital costs. The majority of the costs were incurred by Entergy Louisiana, with a substantial portion also incurred by Entergy Texas. The estimate includes all costs to restore power and repair or replace the damages from the hurricanes, except for the cost to repair or replace damage incurred to an Entergy Louisiana transmission line in southeast Louisiana, and the amount of that cost could be significant. The restoration plan for this transmission line and the related cost estimate is still being evaluated. Also, Utility revenues were adversely affected in 2020, primarily due to power outages resulting from the hurricanes.

Entergy recorded accounts payable and corresponding construction work in progress and regulatory assets for the estimated costs incurred that were necessary to return customers to service. Entergy recorded the regulatory assets in accordance with its accounting policies and based on the historic treatment of such costs in its service area because management believes that recovery through some form of regulatory mechanism is probable. There are well-established mechanisms and precedent for addressing these catastrophic events and providing for recovery of prudently incurred storm costs in accordance with applicable regulatory and legal principles. Because Entergy has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

The Utility operating companies are considering all available avenues to recover storm-related costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta, including accessing funded storm reserve escrows and securitization. In November 2020, Entergy Louisiana drew $257 million from its funded storm reserves. Each Utility operating company is responsible for its restoration cost obligations and for recovering or financing its storm-related costs. Storm cost recovery or financing will be subject to review by applicable regulatory authorities.

In October 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments to facilitate issuance of shorter-term bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta. Subsequently, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion seeking approval to exclude from the derivation of Entergy Louisiana’s capital structure and cost rate of debt for ratemaking purposes, including the allowance for funds used during construction, shorter-term debt up to $1.1 billion issued by Entergy Louisiana to fund costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta on an interim basis. In November 2020 the LPSC issued an order approving the joint motion, and Entergy Louisiana issued $1.1 billion of 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023.

In December 2020, Entergy Louisiana provided the LPSC with notification that it intends to initiate a storm cost recovery proceeding in the near future, which will permit the LPSC to retain any outside consultants and counsel needed to review the storm cost recovery application. In February 2021 the LPSC voted to retain outside
2

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
counsel and consultants to assist in the review of Entergy Louisiana’s upcoming storm cost recovery application, which is expected to be filed in March 2021.

February 2021 Winter Storms

In February 2021, the United States experienced winter storms and extreme cold temperatures, including in Entergy’s service area. The impact of the storms and the extreme cold temperatures affected Entergy’s operational assets and the availability of generation across the area. In order to balance the system, MISO directed Entergy to conduct rolling power outages. Entergy’s system is now back to normal operations. The severe weather event also affected the market for natural gas due to the severe cold’s effects on the gas supply system and increased demand for gas to support electricity loads. Entergy’s preliminary estimate for the cost of mobilizing crews and restoring power is approximately $125 million to $140 million, primarily at Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Mississippi. Natural gas purchases for February 1st through 25th, 2021, for Entergy were approximately $510 million, including $105 million for Entergy Arkansas, $190 million for Entergy Louisiana, $45 million for Entergy Mississippi, $15 million for Entergy New Orleans, and $155 million for Entergy Texas. This compares to natural gas purchases for February 2020 for Entergy of $80 million, including $10 million for Entergy Arkansas, $39 million for Entergy Louisiana, $14 million for Entergy Mississippi, $7 million for Entergy New Orleans, and $10 million for Entergy Texas.

The Utility operating companies each have fuel recovery mechanisms in place to recover their natural gas costs. With the potential effect of the higher natural gas costs on customers, the Utility operating companies plan to work with their retail regulators to recover these costs in a manner that mitigates the effects on customer bills. The Utility operating companies also expect to work with their regulators as the regulators review other effects of the winter storm.

3

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Results of Operations


20172020 Compared to 20162019

Following are income statement variances for Utility, Entergy Wholesale Commodities, Parent & Other, and Entergy comparing 20172020 to 20162019 showing how much the line item increased or (decreased) in comparison to the prior period.
 UtilityEntergy Wholesale CommoditiesParent & Other (a)Entergy
 (In Thousands)
2019 Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Entergy Corporation$1,410,813 $146,682 ($316,269)$1,241,226 
Operating revenues(413,271)(351,850)84 (765,037)
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale(434,394)(30,900)27 (465,267)
Purchased power(297,505)8,940 (27)(288,592)
Other regulatory charges (credits)40,829 — — 40,829 
Other operation and maintenance(84,548)(177,945)(7,262)(269,755)
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges— (263,404)— (263,404)
Taxes other than income taxes15,743 (6,987)339 9,095 
Depreciation and amortization179,298 (46,119)(109)133,070 
Other income(23,947)(151,832)37,047 (138,732)
Interest expense59,456 (7,018)(9,200)43,238 
Other expenses(4,863)(34,848)— (39,711)
Income taxes(301,945)266,232 84,032 48,319 
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries1,301 — — 1,301 
2020 Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Entergy Corporation$1,800,223 ($64,951)($346,938)$1,388,334 
 Utility Entergy Wholesale Commodities Parent & Other (a) Entergy
 (In Thousands)
2016 Consolidated Net Income (Loss)
$1,151,133
 
($1,493,124) 
($222,512) 
($564,503)
        
Net revenue (operating revenue less fuel expense, purchased power, and other regulatory charges/credits)138,617
 (73,433) (16) 65,168
Other operation and maintenance108,187
 13,922
 4,869
 126,978
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges
 (2,297,265) 
 (2,297,265)
Taxes other than income taxes38,897
 (14,657) 814
 25,054
Depreciation and amortization49,491
 (6,731) 31
 42,791
Gain on sale of asset
 16,270
 
 16,270
Other income64,815
 132,734
 1,962
 199,511
Interest expense(10,245) 856
 5,362
 (4,027)
Other expenses24,859
 12,874
 
 37,733
Income taxes370,228
 1,045,783
 (56,182) 1,359,829
2017 Consolidated Net Income (Loss)
$773,148
 
($172,335) 
($175,460) 
$425,353


(a)Parent & Other includes eliminations, which are primarily intersegment activity.

(a)Parent & Other includes eliminations, which are primarily intersegment activity.

Refer to “SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON OF ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES” which accompanies Entergy Corporation’s financial statements in this report for further information with respect to operating statistics.


Results of operations for 20172020 include resolution of the 2014-2015 IRS audit, which resulted in a reduction in deferred income tax expense of $230 million that includes a $396 million reduction in deferred income tax expense at Utility related to the basis of assets contributed in the 2015 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana business combination, including the recognition of previously uncertain tax positions, and deferred income tax expense of $105 million at Entergy Wholesale Commodities and $61 million at Parent and Other resulting from the revaluation of net operating losses as a result of the release of the reserves. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the IRS audit resolution.

Results of operations for 2019 include: 1) $538a loss of $190 million ($350156 million net-of-tax) as a result of the sale of the Pilgrim plant in August 2019; 2) a $156 million reduction in income tax expense recognized by Entergy Wholesale Commodities as a result of an internal restructuring; and 3) impairment charges of $100 million ($79 million net-of-tax) due to costs being charged directly to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired value of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining
4

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size ofexit the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet; 2) a reduction in net income of $181 million, including a $34 million net-of-tax reduction of regulatory liabilities, at Utility and $397 million at Entergy Wholesale Commodities and an increase in net income of $52 million at Parent and Other as a result of Entergy’s re-measurement of its deferred tax assets and liabilities not subjectpower business. See Note 3 to the ratemaking process due to the enactmentfinancial statements for further discussion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, which lowered the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%; and 3) a reduction in income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, of $373 million as a result of a change in the tax classification of legal entities that own Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.internal restructuring. See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” below for a discussion of management’s strategy to reduceshut down and sell all of the size of theremaining plants in Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant nuclear fleet and see Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment and related charges. See Note 3 tocharges and the financial statements for further discussionsale of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the change in the tax classification.Pilgrim plant.



Operating Revenues
2

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Results of operations for 2016 include: 1) $2,836 million ($1,829 million net-of-tax) of impairment and related charges primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Palisades, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair values; 2) a reduction of income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, of $238 million as a result of a change in the tax classification of a legal entity that owned one of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants; income tax benefits as a result of the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit, including a $75 million tax benefit recognized by Entergy Louisiana related to the treatment of the Vidalia purchased power agreement and a $54 million net benefit recognized by Entergy Louisiana related to the treatment of proceeds received in 2010 for the financing of Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55; and 3) a reduction in expenses of $100 million ($64 million net-of-tax) due to the effects of recording in 2016 the final court decisions in several lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment and related charges, see Note 3 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the income tax items, and see Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Net Revenue


Utility


Following is an analysis of the change in net revenueoperating revenues comparing 20172020 to 2016.
2019:
Amount
(In Millions)
2019 operating revenues$9,584 
2016Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net revenueincome
(792)
$6,179
Volume/weather(164)
System Energy provision for rate refund(25)
Return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers194 
Retail electric price91374 
Regulatory credit resulting from reduction of the
  federal corporate income tax rate
2020 operating revenues
56$9,171
Grand Gulf recovery27
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation17
Volume/weather(61)
Other9
2017 net revenue
$6,318


The retail electric price variance is primarily due to:

the implementation of formulaUtility operating companies’ results include revenues from rate plan rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017 at Entergy Arkansas and an increase in base rates effective February 24, 2016, each as approved by the APSC. A significant portion of the base rate increase was relatedmechanisms designed to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station in March 2016;
a provision recorded in 2016 related to the settlement of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding;
the implementation of the transmission cost recovery factor rider at Entergy Texas, effective September 2016, and an increase in the transmission cost recovery factor rider rate, effective March 2017, as approved by the PUCT; and
an increase in rates at Entergy Mississippi, as approved by the MPSC, effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016.

See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate proceedings and the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.


3

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


The regulatory credit resulting from reduction of the federal corporate income tax rate variance is due to the reduction of the Vidaliarecover fuel, purchased power, agreement regulatory liability by $30.5 million and other costs such that the reduction ofrevenues and expenses associated with these items generally offset and do not affect net income. “Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income” includes the Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation regulatory liabilities by $25 million as a result of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, which lowered the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed further in Note 3 to the financial statements.revenue variance associated with these items.


The Grand Gulf recovery variance is primarily due to increased recovery of higher operating costs.

The Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation variance results from a regulatory charge in 2016 for tax savings to be shared with customers per an agreement approved by the LPSC. The tax savings resulted from the 2010-2011 IRS audit settlement on the treatment of the Louisiana Act 55 financing of storm costs for Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the settlement and benefit sharing.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to decreased commercial and industrial usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the effects of Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta, in addition to the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales, partially offset by an increase in industrial usage.residential usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The increasedecrease in industrial usage is primarily due to new customers in the primary metals industry and expansion projects andpartially offset by an increase in demand for existing customersfrom expansion projects, primarily in the chlor-alkali industry.transportation and chemicals industries. See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” above for discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic. See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for discussion of the storms.


The System Energy provision for rate refund variance is due to a provision for rate refund recorded in 2020 to reflect a one-time credit of $25 million provided for in the Federal Power Act section 205 filing made by System Energy in December 2020. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the proceedings involving System Energy at the FERC.

The return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers resulted from activity at the Utility operating companies in response to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes began in second quarter 2018. In 2020, $68 million was returned to customers through reductions in operating revenues as compared to $262 million in 2019. There is no effect on net income as the reductions in operating revenues were offset by reductions in income tax expense. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

5

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to:

interim increases in Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan revenues effective June 2019 due to the inclusion of the first-year revenue requirement for the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and effective April 2020 due to the inclusion of the first-year revenue requirement for the Lake Charles Power Station and increases in formula rate plan revenues effective September 2019 and September 2020;
increases in Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan rates effective with the first billing cycles of July 2019 and April 2020 and an interim capacity rate adjustment to the formula rate plan effective January 2020 to recover non-fuel related costs of acquiring and operating the Choctaw Generating Station;
an increase in Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2020;
the implementation of a vegetation management rider at Entergy Mississippi effective with the April 2020 billing cycle; and
increases in Entergy Texas’s transmission cost recovery factor rider effective January 2020 and distribution cost recovery factor rider effective October 2020.

The increase was partially offset by the effects of Entergy New Orleans’s rate reduction implemented with April 2020 bills that was effective August 2019 in accordance with the City Council resolution and related agreement in principle reached in the 2018 base rate case.

See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the regulatory proceedings discussed above.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities


Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2017 to 2016.
Amount
(In Millions)
2016 net revenue
$1,542
FitzPatrick sale(158)
Nuclear volume(89)
FitzPatrick reimbursement agreement57
Nuclear fuel expenses108
Other9
2017 net revenue
$1,469

As shown in the table above, net revenueOperating revenues for Entergy Wholesale Commodities decreased by approximately $73from $1,295 million in 2017for 2019 to $943 million for 2020 primarily due to the absenceshutdown of net revenue fromIndian Point 2 in April 2020 and the FitzPatrick plant after it was sold to Exelonshutdown of Pilgrim in March 2017 and lower volume in theMay 2019.

Following are key performance measures for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear fleet resulting from more outage daysfor 2020 and 2019:
20202019
Owned capacity (MW) (a)2,2463,274
GWh billed20,58128,088
Entergy Wholesale Commodities Nuclear Fleet
Capacity factor93%93%
GWh billed18,86325,928
Average energy price ($/MWh)$40.33$39.10
Average capacity price ($/kW-month)$1.92$4.25
Refueling outage days:
Indian Point 329
Palisades52

(a)The reduction in 2017 as compared to 2016. The decrease was partially offset by an increase resulting from the reimbursement agreement with Exelon pursuant to which Exelon reimbursed Entergy for specified out-of-pocket costs associated with preparing for the refueling and operation of FitzPatrick that otherwise would have been avoided had Entergy shut down FitzPatrick in January 2017 and a decrease in nuclear fuel expenses primarily relatedowned capacity is due to the impairmentsshutdown of the 1,028 MW Indian Point 2 Indian Point 3, and Palisades plants and related assets. Revenues received from Exelonplant in 2017 under the reimbursement agreement are offset by other operation and maintenance expenses and taxes other than income taxes and had no effect on net income. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the sale of FitzPatrick, the reimbursement agreement with Exelon, and the impairments and related charges.April 2020.



4
6

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Following are key performance measures for Entergy Wholesale Commodities for 2017 and 2016.
 2017 2016
Owned capacity (MW) (a)3,962 4,800
GWh billed30,501 35,881
    
Entergy Wholesale Commodities Nuclear Fleet   
Capacity factor83% 87%
GWh billed28,178 33,551
Average energy and capacity revenue per MWh$50.04 $47.31
Refueling Outage Days:   
FitzPatrick42 
Indian Point 2 102
Indian Point 366 
Pilgrim43 
Palisades27 

(a)The reduction in owned capacity is due to Entergy’s sale of the 838 MW FitzPatrick plant to Exelon in March 2017. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the sale of FitzPatrick.

Other Income Statement Items


Utility


Other operation and maintenance expenses increaseddecreased from $2,360$2,563 million for 20162019 to $2,468$2,478 million for 20172020 primarily due to:


an increasea decrease of $46$42 million in nuclear generation expenses primarily due to higherlower nuclear labor costs, including contract labor, and a lower scope of work performed in 2020 as compared to position the nuclear fleet to meet its operational goals, including additional training and initiatives to support management’s operational goals at Grand Gulf, partially offset by a decrease2019, in regulatory compliance costs. The decrease in regulatory compliance costs is primarily related to additional NRC inspection activities in 2016part as a result of the NRC’s March 2015 decisionCOVID-19 pandemic;
a decrease of $25 million primarily due to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column”contract costs in 2019 related to initiatives to explore new customer products and services;
a decrease of $20 million in non-nuclear generation expenses due to a lower scope of work performed during plant outages in 2020 as compared to prior year, including a delay in plant outages as a result of the NRC’s reactor oversight process action matrix.COVID-19 pandemic, and lower long-term service agreement expenses, partially offset by higher expenses associated with plants placed in service, including the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station), which began commercial operation in May 2019, the Choctaw Generating Station, which was purchased in October 2019, and the Lake Charles Power Station, which began commercial operation in March 2020;
higher nuclear insurance refunds of $18 million; and
an $11 million write-off in 2019 of specific costs related to the potential construction of scrubbers at the White Bluff plant at Entergy Arkansas. See Note 82 to the financial statements for a discussion of the ANO stator incident and subsequent NRC reviews;write-off.

The decrease was partially offset by:

an increase of $24$10 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to higheran increase in net periodic pension and other postretirement benefits costs as a result of a decrease in the discount rate used to value the benefit liabilities, partially offset by lower incentive-based compensation accruals in 20172020 as compared to the prior year;
an increase of $20 million in transmissionyear. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and distribution expenses due to higher vegetation maintenance costs;
the effects of recording in 2016 final court decisions in several lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. The damages awarded included the reimbursement of approximately $19 million of spent nuclear fuel storage costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. See Note 811 to the financial statements for further discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit costs;
an increase of $5 million primarily due to the spent nuclear fuel litigation; and
the2019 deferral in the first quarter 2016by Entergy New Orleans of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima complianceits 2018 rate case and $9.9 milliona system conversion for Algiers customers as a result of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance, asthe 2018 combined rate case resolution approved by the APSC in February 2016 as part of the Entergy Arkansas 2015 rate case settlement. These costs are being amortized over a ten-year period beginning March 2016.City Council. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate case settlement.resolution; and

several individually insignificant items.
The increase was partially offset by a decrease of $23 million in fossil-fueled generation expenses primarily due to lower long-term service agreement costs.

5

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to increases in ad valorem taxes, local franchise taxes, state franchise taxes, and employment taxes. Ad valorem taxes increased primarily due to higher assessments, including the assessment of ad valorem taxes on the Union Power Station beginning in 2017. Local franchise taxes increased primarily due to higher revenues in 2017 as compared to the prior year. State franchise taxes increased primarily due to a change in the Louisiana franchise tax law which became effective for 2017.


Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including the UnionJ. Wayne Leonard Power Station purchased(formerly St. Charles Power Station), the Lake Charles Power Station, and the Choctaw Generating Station, and new depreciation rates at Entergy Mississippi, as approved by the MPSC.

Other regulatory charges (credits) - net for 2020 included a provision of $43.5 million to reflect the 2019 historical year netting adjustment included in March 2016.the APSC’s December 2020 order in Entergy Arkansas’s 2020 formula rate plan proceeding. See Note 142 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.Entergy Arkansas’s 2020 formula rate plan proceedings.


Other income increaseddecreased primarily due to higher realized gains in 2017 as compared to the prior year on the decommissioning trust fund investments, including portfolio rebalancing in 2017, and an increaseto:

a decrease in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2017,2019, including the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) project and the Lake Charles Power Station project.project, partially offset by construction work in progress in 2020 related to the Montgomery County Power Station project; and

7

Table of Contents
Other expensesEntergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

an increase in net periodic pension and other postretirement benefits non-service pension costs as a result of a decrease in the discount rate used to value the benefits liabilities. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for further discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit costs.

The decrease was partially offset by changes in decommissioning trust fund activity.

Interest expense increased primarily due to:

the issuances by Entergy Texas of $300 million in September 2019 and $175 million in March 2020 of 3.55% Series mortgage bonds;
the issuances by Entergy Louisiana of $300 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds and $350 million of 2.90% Series mortgage bonds, each in March 2020, and $525 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds in March 2019;
the issuances by Entergy Arkansas of $350 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds in March 2019 and $100 million of 4.0% Series mortgage bonds in March 2020; and
the issuances by Entergy Mississippi of $135 million of 3.85% Series mortgage bonds in November 2019 and $170 million of 3.50% Series mortgage bonds in May 2020.

See Note 5 to increases in deferred refueling outage amortization costs primarily associated with the most recent ANO plant outages compared to previous outages.financial statements for a discussion of long-term debt.


Entergy Wholesale Commodities


Other operation and maintenance expenses increaseddecreased from $915$678 million for 20162019 to $929$500 million for 20172020 primarily due to:


FitzPatrick’s nuclear refueling outagea decrease of $154 million resulting from the absence of expenses and expenditures for capital assets being classified as other operation and maintenance expenses as a result offrom the sale and reimbursement agreements Entergy entered into with Exelon. These costs would have not been incurred absent the sale agreement with Exelon because Entergy planned toPilgrim plant after it was shut the plant down in January 2017. The expenses are offset by revenue realized pursuant toMay 2019 and the reimbursement agreementIndian Point 2 plant after it was shut down in April 2020; and had no effect on net income. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion
a decrease of the sale and reimbursement agreements;
the effect of recording in 2016 final court decisions in litigation against the DOE for the reimbursement of spent nuclear fuel storage costs, which reduced other operation and maintenance expenses in 2016 by $60 million. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation; and
an increase of $37$23 million in severance and retention costsexpenses. Severance and retention expenses were incurred in 2017 as compared to the prior year2020 and 2019 due to management’s strategy to reduce the size ofexit the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’Commodities merchant fleet. power business.

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” below for a discussion of management’s strategy to reduceshut down and sell all of the size of theremaining plants in Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant nuclear fleet.

The increase was partially offset by a decrease due See Note 13 to the absencefinancial statements for further discussion of other operationseverance and maintenanceretention expenses resulting from management’s strategy to shut down and sell all of the FitzPatrick plant after it was sold to Exelonremaining plants in March 2017.Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant nuclear fleet. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale of FitzPatrick.the Pilgrim plant.


The assetAsset write-offs, impairments, and related charges variance is primarily due to $538for 2020 include impairment charges of $19 million ($35015 million net-of-tax) primarily as a result of impairment charges in 2017 compared to $2,836 million ($1,829 million net-of-tax) of impairmentexpenditures for capital assets. Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges for 2019 include a loss of $190 million ($156 million net-of-tax) as a result of the sale of the Pilgrim plant in 2016. TheAugust 2019 and impairment charges in 2017 are dueof $100 million ($79 million net-of-tax) primarily related to nuclear fuel spending, nuclear refueling outage spending and expenditures for capital assets beingassets. These costs were charged to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired fair value of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size ofexit the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’Commodities merchant fleet.power business. See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” below for a discussion of management’s strategy to reduceshut down and sell all of the size of theremaining plants in Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant nuclear fleet. The impairment and related charges in 2016 were primarilySee Note 14 to write down the carrying valuesfinancial statements for a discussion of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Palisades, Indian Point 2,impairment of long-lived assets and the sale of the Pilgrim plant.


6
8

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Depreciation and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair values. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairments and related charges.

Taxes other than income taxesamortization expenses decreased primarily due to the absence of ad valorem taxesdepreciation expense from the FitzPatrickIndian Point 2 plant, after it was shut down in April 2020.

Other income decreased primarily due to lower gains on decommissioning trust fund investments and a decrease in intercompany interest income resulting from repayment in second quarter 2020 of an intercompany loan to Entergy Corporation. See Notes 15 and 16 to the financial statements for a discussion of decommissioning trust fund investments.

Other expenses decreased primarily due to the absence of decommissioning expense from the Pilgrim plant, after it was sold to Exelon in March 2017. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the sale of FitzPatrick.

The gain on sale of assets resulted from the sale in March 2017 of the 838 MW FitzPatrick plant to Exelon. Entergy sold the FitzPatrick plant for approximately $110 million, which includes a $10 million non-refundable signing fee paid in August 2016, in addition to the assumption by Exelon of certain liabilities related to the FitzPatrick plant, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $16 million on the sale.2019. See Note 14 to the financial statements for a discussion of the sale of FitzPatrick.the Pilgrim plant.


Parent and Other

Other income increased primarily due to higher realized gains in 2017 as compared to the prior year on the decommissioning trust fund investments, including the result of portfolio rebalancing in 2017, and the increase in value realized upon the receipt from NYPAabsence of the decommissioning trust funds for the Indian Point 3elimination of other income at Entergy Wholesale Commodities after repayment of an intercompany loan in second quarter 2020 and FitzPatrick plantsa $15 million charitable donation made in January 2017. See Note 92019 to the financial statements for discussion of the trust transfer agreement with NYPA.

Other expenses increased primarily due to increases in decommissioning expenses primarily as a result of a trust transfer agreement Entergy entered into with NYPA in August 2016, which closed in January 2017, to transfer the decommissioning trusts and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy and revisions to the estimated decommissioning cost liabilities forfund the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Indian Point 2 and Palisades plants as a result of revised decommissioning cost studies in the fourth quarter 2016. The increase was partially offset by a reduction in deferred refueling outage amortization costs related to the impairments of the Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, and Palisades plants and related assets. See Note 9 to the financial statementsCharitable Foundation for discussion of the trust transfer agreement with NYPA and the revised decommissioning cost studies. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the impairments and related charges.three years.


Income Taxes


See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 35%21% to the effective income tax rates, and for additional discussion regarding income taxes.


The effective income tax rate for 20172020 was 56.1%(9.5%). The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of 35% for 201721% was primarily due to the enactmentcompletion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed by President Trump in December 2017, which changed the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective in 2018, partially offset by a change in2014-2015 IRS audit effectively settling the tax classification of legal entities that own Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, which resulted in both permanent and temporary differences under the income tax accounting standards.positions for those years. See Note 3 to the financial statements for furthera discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the change in tax classification.2014-2015 IRS audit.


The effective income tax rate for 20162019 was 59.1%(15.6%). The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of 35% for 201621% was primarily due to a change in the tax classificationamortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes, recognition of a legal entity that owned onedeferred tax asset associated with a previously unrecognized net operating loss carryover, a charitable tax deduction, and the effects of therestructuring transactions within Entergy Wholesale Commodities, nuclear power plants and the reversal of a portion of the provision for uncertain tax positions as a result of the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit, partially offset by state income taxesvaluation allowances recorded against deferred tax assets associated with the disposition of Vermont Yankee and certain bookthe carryover of business interest expense. See Notes 2 and tax differences related3 to utility plant items.the financial statements for a discussion of the effects and regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additionala discussion of the change ininternal restructuring at Entergy Wholesale Commodities. See Note 14 to the financial statements for a discussion of the tax classification andeffects of the tax settlement.Vermont Yankee disposition.


2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Entergy’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020 for discussion of results of operations for 2019 compared to 2018.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership of the following nuclear reactors as of December 31, 2020:
LocationMarketCapacityStatus
Indian Point 2Buchanan, NYNYISO1,028 MWShut down in April 2020
Indian Point 3Buchanan, NYNYISO1,041 MWPlanned shutdown in April 2021
PalisadesCovert, MIMISO811 MWPlanned shutdown in May 2022
7
9

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis




2016 ComparedEntergy sold its FitzPatrick plant to 2015
Following are income statement variances for Utility, Entergy Wholesale Commodities, Parent & Other,Exelon in March 2017 and, Entergy comparing 2016as discussed below, transferred its Vermont Yankee plant to 2015 showing how much the line item increased or (decreased)NorthStar in comparisonJanuary 2019 and sold its Pilgrim plant to the prior period.

 Utility Entergy Wholesale Commodities Parent & Other Entergy
 (In Thousands)
2015 Consolidated Net Income (Loss)
$1,114,516
 
($1,065,657) 
($205,593) 
($156,734)
        
Net revenue (operating revenue less fuel expense, purchased power, and other regulatory charges/credits)350,528
 (123,791) (33) 226,704
Other operation and maintenance(83,265) 15,269
 9,726
 (58,270)
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges(68,672) 799,403
 
 730,731
Taxes other than income taxes(10,229) (16,259) (432) (26,920)
Depreciation and amortization49,600
 (39,180) (509) 9,911
Gain on sale of asset
 (154,037) 
 (154,037)
Other income15,153
 8,666
 4,281
 28,100
Interest expense14,414
 (3,930) 12,417
 22,901
Other expenses19,589
 (15,074) 
 4,515
Income taxes407,627
 (581,924) (35) (174,332)
2016 Consolidated Net Income (Loss)
$1,151,133
 
($1,493,124) 
($222,512) 
($564,503)

Refer to “SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON OF ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES” which accompanies Entergy Corporation’s financial statementsHoltec in this report for further information with respect to operating statistics.

Results of operations for 2016 include $2,836 million ($1,829 million net-of-tax) of impairment and related charges primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’August 2019. The Palisades Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair values. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment and related charges. Results of operations for 2016 also include a reduction of income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, of $238 million as a result of a change in the tax classification of a legal entity that owned one of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants; income tax benefits as a result of the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit, including a $75 million tax benefit recognized by Entergy Louisiana related to the treatment of the Vidalia purchased power agreement and a $54 million net benefit recognized by Entergy Louisiana related to the treatment of proceeds received in 2010 for the financing of Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55; and a reduction in expenses of $100 million ($64 million net-of-tax) due to the effects of recording in 2016 the final court decisions in several lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the income tax items. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Results of operations for 2015 include $2,036 million ($1,317 million net-of-tax) of impairment and related charges primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ FitzPatrick, Pilgrim, and Palisades plants and related assets to their fair values. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment and related charges. As a result of the Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana business combination, results of operations for 2015 also include two items that occurred in October 2015: 1) a deferred tax asset and resulting net increase in tax basis of approximately $334 million and 2) a regulatory liability of $107 million

8

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

($66 million net-of-tax) as a result of customer creditsare under contract to be realized by electric customers ofsold, subject to certain conditions, after they are shut down. Entergy Louisiana, consistent with the terms of the stipulated settlement in the business combination proceeding. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the business combination and customer credits. Results of operations for 2015 also include the sale in December 2015 of the 583 MW Rhode Island State Energy Center for a realized gain of $154 million ($100 million net-of-tax) on the sale and the $77 million ($47 million net-of-tax) write-off and regulatory charges to recognize that a portion of the assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project is no longer probable of recovery. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Rhode Island State Energy Center sale. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding.

Net Revenue

Utility

Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.
Amount
(In Millions)
2015 net revenue
$5,829
Retail electric price289
Louisiana business combination customer credits107
Volume/weather14
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation(17)
Other(43)
2016 net revenue
$6,179

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to:

an increase in base rates at Entergy Arkansas, as approved by the APSC. The new rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. The increase included an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. A significant portion of the increase was related to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station;
an increase in the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider for Entergy New Orleans, as approved by the City Council, effective with the first billing cycle of March 2016, primarily related to the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station;
an increase in formula rate plan revenues for Entergy Louisiana, implemented with the first billing cycle of March 2016, to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement related to the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station; and
an increase in revenues at Entergy Mississippi, as approved by the MPSC, effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and an increase in revenues collected through the storm damage rider.

See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate proceedings. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

The Louisiana business combination customer credits variance is due to a regulatory liability of $107 million recorded by Entergy in October 2015 as a result of the Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana business combination. Consistent with the terms of the stipulated settlement in the business combination proceeding, electric customers of Entergy Louisiana will realize customer credits associated with the business combination; accordingly, in October 2015, Entergy recorded a regulatory liability of $107 million ($66 million net-of-tax). These costs are being

9

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


amortized over a nine-year period beginning December 2015. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the business combination and customer credits.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to the effect of more favorable weather during the unbilled period and an increase in industrial usage, partially offset by the effect of less favorable weather on residential sales. The increase in industrial usage is primarily due to expansion projects, primarily in the chemicals industry, and increased demand from new customers, primarily in the industrial gases industry.

The Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation variance results from a regulatory charge for tax savings to be shared with customers per an agreement approved by the LPSC. The tax savings resulted from the 2010-2011 IRS audit settlement on the treatment of the Louisiana Act 55 financing of storm costs for Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the settlement and benefit sharing.

Included in Other is a provision of $23 million recorded in 2016 related to the settlement of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding, offset by a provision of $32 million recorded in 2015 related to the uncertainty at that time associated with the resolution of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding.  See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities

Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.
Amount
(In Millions)
2015 net revenue
$1,666
Nuclear realized price changes(149)
Rhode Island State Energy Center(44)
Nuclear volume(36)
FitzPatrick reimbursement agreement41
Nuclear fuel expenses68
Other(4)
2016 net revenue
$1,542

As shown in the table above, net revenue for Entergy Wholesale Commodities decreased by approximately $124 million in 2016 primarily due to:

lower realized wholesale energy prices and lower capacity prices, the amortization of the Palisades below-market PPA, and Vermont Yankee capacity revenue. The effect of the amortization of the Palisades below-market PPA and Vermont Yankee capacity revenue on the net revenue variance from 2015 to 2016 is minimal;
the sale of the Rhode Island State Energy Center in December 2015. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Rhode Island State Energy Center sale; and
lower volume in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear fleet resulting from more refueling outage days in 2016 as compared to 2015 and larger exercise of resupply options in 2016 as compared to 2015. See “Nuclear Matters - Indian Point” below for discussion of the extended Indian Point 2 outage in the second quarter 2016.


10

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

The decrease was partially offset by:

an increase resulting from the reimbursement agreement with Exelon pursuant to which Exelon reimbursed Entergy for specified out-of-pocket costs associated with preparing for the refueling and operation of FitzPatrick that otherwise would have been avoided had Entergy shut down FitzPatrick in January 2017. Revenues received from Exelon under the reimbursement agreement are offset in nuclear fuel expenses and other operation and maintenance expenses and have no material effect on net income. See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business - Sale of FitzPatrick” below for further discussion of the reimbursement agreement; and
a decrease in nuclear fuel expenses primarily related to the impairments of the FitzPatrick, Pilgrim, and Palisades plants and related assets. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the impairments.

Following are key performance measures for Entergy Wholesale Commodities for 2016 and 2015.
 2016 2015
Owned capacity (MW) (a)4,800 4,880
GWh billed35,881 39,745
    
Entergy Wholesale Commodities Nuclear Fleet   
Capacity factor87% 91%
GWh billed33,551 35,859
Average energy and capacity revenue per MWh$47.31 $50.29
Refueling Outage Days:   
Indian Point 2102 
Indian Point 3 23
Palisades 32
Pilgrim 34

(a)The reduction in owned capacity is due to Entergy’s sale of its 50% membership interest in Top Deer Wind Ventures, LLC in November 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the sale.

Other Income Statement Items

Utility

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased from $2,443 million for 2015 to $2,360 million for 2016 primarily due to:

a decrease of $78 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to a decrease in net periodic pension and other postretirement benefits costs as a result of an increase in the discount rate used to value the benefit liabilities and a refinement in the approach used to estimate the service cost and interest cost components of pension and other postretirement costs. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for further discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit costs;
the effects of recording in 2016 final court decisions in several lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. The damages awarded include the reimbursement of approximately $19 million of spent nuclear fuel storage costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation;
the deferral in 2016 of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance, as approved by the APSC in February 2016 as part of the Entergy Arkansas 2015 rate case settlement. These costs are being

11

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


amortized over a ten-year period beginning March 2016. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate case settlement; and
a decrease of $13 million in energy efficiency costs, including the effects of true-ups to energy efficiency filings for fixed costs to be collected from customers and incentives recognized as a result of participation in energy efficiency programs.

The decrease was partially offset by an increase of $61 million in nuclear generation expenses primarily due to higher nuclear labor costs, including contract labor, and an overall higher scope of work done during plant outages in 2016 as compared to prior year.

The asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges variance is due to the following activity:

the $45 million ($28 million net-of-tax) write-off in 2015 to recognize that a portion of the assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project was no longer probable of recovery; and
the $23.5 million ($15.3 million net-of-tax) write-off in 2015 of the regulatory asset associated with the Spindletop gas storage facility as a result of the approval of the System Agreement termination settlement agreement.

See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the asset write-offs.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including the Union Power Station purchased in March 2016, partially offset by the effects of recording the final court decisions in several lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. The damages awarded include the reimbursement of approximately $11 million in 2016 of spent nuclear fuel storage costs previously recorded as depreciation. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Other expenses increased primarily due to an increase in nuclear refueling outage expenses as a result of amortization of higher costs associated with refueling outages and increases in decommissioning expenses in 2016 primarily due to revised decommissioning cost studies in 2015 for Grand Gulf and Waterford 3.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $899 million for 2015 to $915 million for 2016 primarily due to:

an increase of $60 million in severance and retention costs related to the planned shutdown or sale of the Pilgrim and FitzPatrick plants. See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit From the Merchant Power Business” below for a discussion of management’s strategy to reduce the size of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet;
$41 million associated with preparing to refuel FitzPatrick in January 2017. Exelon reimbursed Entergy for these costs in accordance with the reimbursement agreement discussed in “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit From the Merchant Power Business - Sale of FitzPatrick” below; and
an increase of $26 million in costs related to Pilgrim’s response to a planned NRC enhanced inspection as a result of the NRC placing Pilgrim in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix in September 2015. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the NRC’s decision and Pilgrim’s response.

The increase was partially offset by:

the effects of recording the final court decisions in several lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. The damages awarded include the reimbursement of approximately $60 million in 2016 compared to the reimbursement of approximately $2 million in 2015 of spent nuclear fuel storage costs

12

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expenses. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation;
a decrease of $32 million as a result of the sale of the Rhode Island State Energy Center in December 2015. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Rhode Island State Energy Center sale; and
a decrease of $21 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to a decrease in net periodic pension and other postretirement benefits costs as a result of an increase in the discount rate used to value the benefit liabilities and a refinement in the approach used to estimate the service cost and interest cost components of pension and other postretirement costs. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for further discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit costs.

The asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges variance is due to $2,836 million ($1,829 million net-of-tax) in 2016 of impairment and related charges primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Palisades, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair values, partially offset by $2,036 million ($1,317 million net-of-tax) in 2015 of impairment and related charges primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ FitzPatrick, Pilgrim, and Palisades plants and related assets to their fair values. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of these charges.

Depreciation and amortization expenses decreased primarily due to:

decreases in depreciable asset balances as a result of the impairments of the FitzPatrick, Pilgrim, and Palisades plants. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairments;
the effects of recording the final court decisions in several lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. The damages awarded include the reimbursement of approximately $15 million in 2016 compared to the reimbursement of approximately $4 million in 2015 of spent nuclear fuel storage costs previously recorded as depreciation. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation; and
a decrease in depreciable asset balances as a result of the sale of the Rhode Island State Energy Center in December 2015. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Rhode Island State Energy Center sale.

The gain on sale of asset resulted from the sale in December 2015 of the 583 MW Rhode Island State Energy Center in Johnston, Rhode Island, a business wholly-owned by Entergy in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment. Entergy sold the Rhode Island State Energy Center, for approximately $490 milliona natural gas-fired combined cycle generating plant, in December 2015.

These plant sales and realized a pre-tax gain of $154 million oncontracts to sell are the sale. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Rhode Island State Energy Center sale.

Other expenses decreased primarily due to the reduction in deferred refueling outage amortization costs related to the impairments of the FitzPatrick, Pilgrim, and Palisades plants and related assets, partially offset by increases in decommissioning expenses primarily as a result of a trust transfer agreementstrategy that Entergy entered into with NYPA in August 2016 to transfer the decommissioning trusts and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy and a revision to the estimated decommissioning cost liability for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Pilgrim plant as a result of a revised decommissioning cost study in 2015. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairments and related charges and Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of nuclear decommissioning costs.

Income Taxes

See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 35% to the effective income tax rates, and for additional discussion regarding income taxes.


13

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


The effective income tax rate for 2016 was 59.1%.  The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the statutory rate of 35% for 2016 was primarily due to a change in the tax classification of a legal entity that owned one of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants and the reversal of a portion of the provision for uncertain tax positions as a result of the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit, partially offset by state income taxes and certain book and tax differences related to utility plant items. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the change in the tax classification and the tax settlement.

The effective income tax rate for 2015 was 80.4%.  The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the statutory rate of 35% for 2015 was primarily due to the tax effects of the Louisiana business combination. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the tax effects of the Louisiana business combination.

Income Tax Legislation

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law H.R. 1, also known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Act). As a result of the Act, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries re-measured their deferred tax assets and liabilities in December 2017 to reflect the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% that is effective January 1, 2018. Note 3 to the financial statements contains additional discussion of the effect of the Act on 2017 results of operations and financial position, the provisions of the Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Act, and Note 2 to the financial statements discusses proceedings commenced or other responses by Entergy’s regulators to the Act.

On a going forward basis, after going through the appropriate regulatory processes Entergy expects the Act to reduce its operating cash flows because the lower federal corporate income tax rate will result in lower income tax expense collected in revenues and as excess deferred income taxes are returned to customers. In general, rate base is expected to increase over time as a consequence of the Act as the excess deferred income taxes are returned to customers. Entergy expects to finance its incremental cash requirements as a consequence of these changes through a combination of Registrant Subsidiary debt and Entergy Corporation debt and equity. Entergy Corporation expects the equity portion of this financing to be approximately $1 billion, and currently expects to issue all of this equity before the end of 2019. It is expected that certain credit metrics that incorporate operating cash flows or debt outstanding will be adversely affected by the effects of the Act.

The amount and timing of the earnings and cash effects of the Act and the financing of the incremental cash requirements will depend upon regulatory treatment of the effects of the Act. The Registrant Subsidiaries will work directly with their respective regulators to determine the appropriate path forward in each jurisdiction. Potential regulatory options that may be considered include:

determining the period over which certain income tax benefits are provided to customers;
accelerating depreciation or amortization for certain assets or asset classes; and
increasing or modifying capital investments.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business

Entergy management has undertaken a strategy to manage and reduce the risk of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, which includes taking actions to reduce the size ofincluding exiting the merchant fleet.power business. Management evaluated the challenges for each of the plants based on a variety of factors such as their market for both energy and capacity, their size, their contracted positions, and the amount of investment required to continue to operate and maintain the safety and integrity of the plants, including the estimated asset retirement costs. Management continuesChanges to look for ways to mitigatecurrent assumptions regarding the operational and decommissioning risks associated with the merchant power business. Assumptions regarding theremaining operating life of the plants anda plant, the decommissioning timeline and process, or the length of time that Entergy will continue to be evaluated.  Changes to current assumptionsown a plant could result in revisions to the asset retirement obligations and affect compliance with certain NRC minimum financial assurance requirements for meeting obligations to decommission the plants. Increases in the asset retirement obligations couldare likely to result in an increase in operating expense in the period of a revision.

14

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Assumptions regarding theThe possibility that a plant may have an operating life shorter than previously assumed will likelycould result in the need for additional contributions to decommissioning trust funds, or the posting of parent guarantees, letters of credit, or other surety mechanisms.


Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership of the following nuclear reactors:

LocationMarketCapacityPlanned Transaction
Vermont YankeeVernon, VTISO-NE605 MWPlant in decommissioning phase, planned sale in 2018
PilgrimPlymouth, MAISO-NE688 MWPlanned shutdown in 2019
Indian Point 2Buchanan, NYNYISO1,028 MWPlanned shutdown in 2020
Indian Point 3Buchanan, NYNYISO1,041 MWPlanned shutdown in 2021
PalisadesCovert, MIMISO811 MWPlanned shutdown in 2022

As discussed below, Entergy sold the FitzPatrick nuclear power plant to Exelon in March 2017. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of two non-operating nuclear facilities, Big Rock Point in Michigan and Indian Point 1 in New York, that were acquired when Entergy purchased the Palisades and Indian Point 2 nuclear plants, respectively. These facilities are in various stages ofBig Rock Point is under contract to be sold with the decommissioning process.Palisades plant and Indian Point 1 is under contract to be sold with the Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 plants. In addition, Entergy Wholesale Commodities provides operations and management services, including decommissioningdecommissioning-related services, to nuclear power plants owned by other utilitiesnon-affiliated entities in the United States. A relatively minor portion of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is the ownership of interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers.


Shutdown and Planned SaleDisposition of Vermont Yankee


On December 29, 2014, the Vermont Yankee plant ceased power production and entered its decommissioning phase.In November 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to selltransfer 100% of the membership interests in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC to a subsidiary of NorthStar. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee iswas the owner of the Vermont Yankee plant and is in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment.plant. The sale of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to NorthStar will includetransaction included the transfer of the nuclear decommissioning trust fund and the asset retirement obligation for the spent fuel management and decommissioning of the plant.


In March 2018, Entergy and NorthStar entered into a settlement agreement and a Memorandum of Understanding with State of Vermont agencies and other interested parties that set forth the terms on which the agencies and parties supported the Vermont Public Utility Commission’s approval of the transaction. The agreements provided additional financial assurance for decommissioning, spent fuel management and site restoration, and detailed the site restoration standards. In October 2018 the NRC issued an order approving the application to transfer Vermont Yankee’s license to NorthStar for decommissioning. In December 2018 the Vermont Public Utility Commission issued an order approving the transaction consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding’s terms. On January 11, 2019, Entergy and NorthStar closed the transaction.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee hashad an outstanding credit facility with borrowing capacity of $145 millionthat was used to pay for dry fuel storage costs. This credit facility iswas guaranteed by Entergy Corporation. At or before closing, aA subsidiary of Entergy will assumeassumed the obligations under the existing credit facility or enter into a new credit facility, and Entergy will guarantee the credit facility.it remains outstanding. At the closing of the sale transaction, NorthStar will pay $1,000 for the membership interests incaused Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, andrenamed NorthStar will cause Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, to issue a $139 million promissory note to anthe Entergy affiliate.subsidiary that assumed the credit facility obligations. The amount of the promissory note issued will be equal toincludes the amount drawn under
10

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
balance outstanding on the credit facility, or the amount drawn under the new credit facility, plusas well as borrowing fees and costs incurred by Entergy in connection with suchthe credit facility. The principal amount drawn under

With the outstanding credit facility was $104 millionreceipt of the NRC and Vermont Public Utility Commission approvals and the resolution among the parties of the significant conditions of the sale, Entergy concluded that as of December 31, 2017, and the net book value of Entergy Nuclear2018 Vermont Yankee including unrealized gains on the decommissioning trust fund, as of December 31, 2017, was approximately $123 million.

in held for sale status. Entergy plans to transfer all spent nuclear fuel to dry cask storage by the end of 2018accordingly evaluated Vermont Yankee’s asset retirement obligation in advancelight of the planned transaction close. Under the sale agreement and related agreements to be entered into at the closing, NorthStar will commit to initiate decommissioning and site restoration by 2021 and complete those activities by 2030. The original planned completion date, as outlined in Entergy’s Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report filed with the NRC, was 2075. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, under NorthStar ownership, will be required to repay the promissory note issued to Entergy with certainterms of the proceeds fromtransaction and evaluated the recoveryremaining values of damages under its claims against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel disposal, with any balance remaining due at partial site release, subject to extension not to exceed two years from partial site release.

15

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including approval by the NRC; approval by the State of Vermont Public Utility Commission, including approval of site restoration standards that have been proposed as part of the transaction; the transfer of all spent nuclear fuel to dry fuel storage on the independent spent fuel storage installation; and that the market value of the fund assets held in the decommissioning trust fund for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, lessassets. These evaluations resulted in an increase in the hypothetical income tax onasset retirement obligation and $173 million of related asset impairment and other charges in the aggregate unrealized net gain of such fund assets at closing, is equal to or exceeds $451.95 million, subject to adjustments. Entergy has the option to contributefourth quarter 2018. See Note 9 to the decommissioning trust fund iffinancial statements for additional discussion of the value is less than $451.95 million, subjectasset retirement obligation. See Note 14 to adjustments. The transaction is planned to close by the endfinancial statements for discussion of 2018.the closing of the Vermont Yankee transaction.


Shutdown and Sale of Rhode Island State Energy CenterPilgrim

In December 2015, Entergy sold the Rhode Island State Energy Center, a 583 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating plant owned by Entergy in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment. Entergy sold the Rhode Island State Energy Center for approximately $490 million and realized a pre-tax gain of $154 million on the sale.

Sale of Top Deer Investment

In November 2016, Entergy sold its 50% membership interest in Top Deer Wind Ventures, LLC, a wind-powered electric generation joint venture owned by Entergy in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment and accounted for as an equity method investment. Entergy sold its 50% membership interest in Top Deer for approximately $0.5 million and realized a pre-tax loss of $0.2 million on the sale.

Sale of FitzPatrick


In October 2015, Entergy determined that it would close the FitzPatrick plant. The original expectation was to shut down the FitzPatrickPilgrim plant, at the end of its fuel cycleand Pilgrim ceased operations in January 2017.May 2019. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the impairment charges associated with the decision to cease operations earlier than expected.


In August 2016,On July 30, 2018, Entergy entered into a trust transferpurchase and sale agreement with NYPAHoltec International to sell to a Holtec subsidiary 100% of the equity interests in Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, LLC, the owner of Pilgrim, for $1,000 (subject to adjustments for net liabilities and other amounts). On August 22, 2019, the NRC approved the transfer of Pilgrim’s facility licenses to Holtec. At that time, hearing requests filed by the decommissioning trust fundsCommonwealth of Massachusetts and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy. When Entergy purchased Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust fundsPilgrim Watch challenging Holtec’s financial qualifications and the decommissioning liabilities.  NYPA and Entergy subsidiaries executed decommissioning agreements, which specified their decommissioning obligations.  NYPA had the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume eachsufficiency of the decommissioning liabilities provided that it assigned the corresponding decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to the Entergy subsidiaries.  Under the original agreements, if the decommissioning liabilities were retained by NYPA, the Entergy subsidiaries would perform the decommissioningNRC’s review of the plants at a price equal to the lesser of a pre-specified level or the amount in the decommissioning trust funds.  At the timeassociated environmental impacts of the acquisition oflicense transfer were pending with the plants Entergy recordedNRC commissioners. The NRC approval order included a contract asset that represented an estimate ofcondition acknowledging the present value ofNRC’s longstanding authority to modify, condition, or rescind the difference between the stipulated contract amount for decommissioning the plants less the decommissioning costs estimated in independent decommissioning cost studies.  The asset was increased by monthly accretion based on the applicable discount rate necessary to ultimately provide for the estimated future value of the decommissioning contract. The monthly accretion was recordedlicense transfer order as interest income. As a result of any hearing that may be conducted.  On August 26, 2019, as permitted by the agreementAugust 22 order, Entergy and Holtec closed the transaction.

On September 25, 2019, Massachusetts filed a petition with NYPA, in the third quarter 2016, Entergy removed the contract asset from its balance sheet, and recorded receivablesU.S. Court of Appeals for the beneficial interestsDistrict of Columbia Circuit, asking the court to vacate the NRC’s August 22 license transfer approval order and related approvals. On November 22, 2019, Entergy and Holtec filed a motion to dismiss Massachusetts’ petition; the NRC also filed a motion to dismiss on the same date. On January 22, 2020, Massachusetts filed a second petition with the D.C. Circuit asking the court to review the NRC’s December 17, 2019 order denying its stay motion. On June 16, 2020, Holtec and Massachusetts reached a settlement to resolve issues related to the Pilgrim transaction. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Massachusetts withdrew its hearing request pending before the NRC and withdrew both of its petitions for review before the D.C. Circuit, thereby terminating Massachusetts’s pending legal challenges to the Pilgrim transfer. The NRC denied Pilgrim Watch’s hearing request in November 2020, and Pilgrim Watch did not file a judicial appeal of the NRC’s denial order.

The sale of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, LLC to Holtec included the transfer of the nuclear decommissioning trust funds and asset retirement obligationsobligation for the decommissioning liabilities.spent fuel management and plant decommissioning. The asset retirement obligations are accreted monthly throughtransaction resulted in a charge to decommissioning expense. The decommissioning trust funds for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants were transferred to Entergy by NYPAloss of $190 million ($156 million net-of-tax) in January 2017.2019. See Note 914 to the financial statements for further discussion of the closing of the Pilgrim transaction.

Planned Shutdown and Sale of Indian Point 32 and FitzPatrick’s decommissioning liabilities and see Note 16Indian Point 3

In April 2007, Entergy submitted to the financial statementsNRC a joint application to renew the operating licenses for further discussion of the receivables for the beneficial interests inIndian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 for an additional 20 years. In January 2017, Entergy reached a settlement with New York State, several State agencies, and FitzPatrick’s decommissioning trust funds asRiverkeeper, Inc., under which Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 would cease commercial operation by April 30, 2020 and April 30, 2021, respectively, subject to certain conditions, including New York State’s withdrawal of December 31, 2016.

In August 2016, Entergy entered into an agreementopposition to sell the FitzPatrick plantIndian Point’s license renewals and issuance of contested permits and similar authorizations. Operations could be extended up to Exelon. NRC approval of the sale was received in March 2017. The transaction closed in March 2017four additional years for a purchase price of $110 million, which

each unit by
16
11

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


included a $10 million non-refundable signing fee paid in August 2016, in additionmutual agreement of Entergy and New York State based on an exigent reliability need for Indian Point generation. In September 2018 the NRC issued renewed operating licenses for Indian Point 2 through April 2024 and for Indian Point 3 through April 2025. Pursuant to the assumption by Exelon of certain liabilities related to the FitzPatrick plant, resulting in a pre-tax gainJanuary 2017 settlement agreement, Indian Point 2 ceased commercial operations on the sale of $16 million. At the transaction close, Exelon paid an additional $8 million for the proration of certain expenses prepaid by Entergy. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale of FitzPatrick. As discussed in NoteApril 30, 2020, and Indian Point 3 to the financial statements, as a result of the sale of FitzPatrick, Entergy re-determined the plant’s tax basis, resulting in a $44 million income tax benefit in the first quarter 2017.

Planned Shutdown of Pilgrim

In October 2015, Entergy determined that it would close the Pilgrim plant. The decision came after management’s extensive analysis of the economics and operating life of the plant following the NRC’s decision in September 2015 to place the plant in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. The Pilgrim plant is expected to cease commercial operations on May 31, 2019, at the end of its current fuel cycle.April 30, 2021. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the impairment charges associated with the decision to cease operations earlier than expectedshut down the Indian Point plants.

Other provisions of the settlement include termination of all then-existing investigations of Indian Point by the parties to the agreement, which include the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of State, the New York State Department of Public Service, the New York State Department of Health, and see Note 8the New York State Attorney General. The settlement recognizes the right of New York State agencies to pursue new investigations and enforcement actions with respect to new circumstances or existing conditions that become materially exacerbated.

Another provision of the settlement obligates Entergy to establish a $15 million fund for further discussion onenvironmental projects and community support. Apportionment and allocation of funds to beneficiaries are to be determined by mutual agreement of New York State and Entergy. The settlement recognizes New York State’s right to perform an annual inspection of Indian Point, with scope and timing to be determined by mutual agreement.

In April 2019, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell, directly or indirectly, 100% of the placement of Pilgrimequity interests in Column 4.

Planned Shutdown ofthe subsidiaries that own Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3,

Indian Point 2 and after Indian Point 3 havehas been involved,shut down and have faced opposition,defueled, to a Holtec subsidiary for decommissioning the plants. The sale will include the transfer of the licenses, spent fuel, decommissioning liabilities, and nuclear decommissioning trusts for the three units.

The transaction is subject to closing conditions, including approval from the NRC. In November 2019, Entergy and Holtec submitted a license transfer application to the NRC. The NRC issued an order approving the application in extensive licensing proceedings.November 2020, subject to the NRC’s authority to condition, revise, or rescind the approval order based on the resolution of four pending hearing requests. A substantially identical condition was imposed in the NRC’s August 2019 order approving the license transfer for Pilgrim. In January 2017, Entergy announced that it reached a settlement with2021 the NRC issued an order denying all four hearing requests challenging the license transfer application. In January 2021, New York State filed a petition for review with the D.C. Circuit asking the court to shut down Indian Point 2 by April 30,vacate the NRC’s January 2021 order denying the State’s hearing request, as well as the NRC’s November 2020 and Indian Point 3 by April 30,order approving the license transfers. In January 2021 the D.C. Circuit issued a scheduling order, setting deadlines for initial procedural filings in March 2021. See further discussionAny other petitioners seeking judicial review of the licensing proceedingsJanuary 2021 NRC order must file their petitions by March 16, 2021.

Entergy and Holtec also submitted a petition to the settlement reached with New York State Public Service Commission in Entergy Wholesale Commodities AuthorizationsNovember 2019 seeking an order from the New York Public Service Commission disclaiming jurisdiction or abstaining from review of the transaction or, alternatively, approving the transaction. Closing is also conditioned on obtaining from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation an agreement related to OperateHoltec’s decommissioning plan as being consistent with applicable standards. The transaction closing is targeted for May 2021, following the defueling of Indian Pointbelow. 3.


As discussed above,consideration for the transfer to Holtec of its interest in August 2016,Indian Point, Entergy entered intowill receive nominal cash consideration. The Indian Point transaction is expected to result in a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transferloss based on the decommissioning trust funddifference between Entergy’s adjusted net investment in the subsidiaries at closing and decommissioning liability forthe sale price net of any agreed adjustments. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy’s adjusted net investment in the Indian Point 3units was $255 million. The primary variables in the ultimate loss that Entergy will incur are the values of the nuclear decommissioning trusts and the asset retirement obligations at closing, the financial results from plant operations until the closing, and the level of any unrealized deferred tax balances at closing. The terms of the transaction include limitations on withdrawals from the nuclear decommissioning trusts to Entergy. Thefund decommissioning activities and controls on how Entergy manages the investment of nuclear decommissioning trust fund forassets between signing and closing; however, the Indian Point 3 plant was transferredagreement does not require a minimum level of funding in the nuclear decommissioning trusts as a condition to closing.
12

Table of Contents
Entergy by NYPA in January 2017.Corporation and Subsidiaries

Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment charges associated with management’s evaluation of alternatives to the continued operation of the Indian Point plants.


Planned Shutdown and Sale of Palisades


MostAlmost all of the Palisades output is sold under a power purchase agreement (PPA) with Consumers Energy, entered into when the plant was acquired in 2007, that is scheduled to expire in 2022. The PPA prices currently exceed market prices and escalate each year, up to $61.50/MWh in 2022.prices. In December 2016, Entergy reached an agreement with Consumers Energy to amend the existing PPA to terminate early, on May 31, 2018. Pursuant to the agreement to amend the PPA, Consumers Energy would pay Entergy $172 million for the early termination of the PPA. The PPA amendment agreement was subject to regulatory approvals, including approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Separately, Entergy intended to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on October 1, 2018, after refueling in the spring of 2017 and operating through the end of that fuel cycle.


In September 2017 the Michigan Public Service Commission issued an order conditionally approving the PPA amendment transaction, but only granting Consumers Energy recovery of $136.6 million of the $172 million requested early termination payment. As a result, Entergy and Consumers Energy agreed to terminate the PPA amendment agreement. Entergy will continuecontinues to operate Palisades under the currentexisting PPA with Consumers Energy, instead of shutting down in the fall of 2018 as previously planned. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently onno later than May 31, 2022. As a result of the changeincrease in the expected operating life of the plant, the expected probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows as of September 30, 2017 exceeded the carrying value of the plant and related assets. Accordingly, nuclear fuel spending, nuclear refueling outage spending, and expenditures for capital assets incurred at Palisades after September 30, 2017 are no longer charged to expense as incurred, but recorded as

17

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


assets and depreciated or amortized, subject to the typical periodic impairment reviews prescribed in the accounting rules. See Note 9

On July 30, 2018, Entergy entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Holtec International to sell to a Holtec subsidiary 100% of the equity interests in the subsidiary that owns Palisades and the Big Rock Point Site. The sale will include the transfer of the nuclear decommissioning trust and obligation for spent fuel management and plant decommissioning. In February 2020 the parties signed an amendment to the financial statements for discussionpurchase and sale agreement to remove the closing condition that the nuclear decommissioning trust fund must have a specified amount and Entergy agreed to contribute $20 million to the nuclear decommissioning trust fund at closing, among other amendments. At the closing of the associatedsale transaction, the Holtec subsidiary will pay $1,000 (subject to adjustment for net liabilities and other amounts) for the equity interests in the subsidiary that owns Palisades and the Big Rock Point Site.

The Palisades transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including: the permanent shutdown of Palisades and the transfer of all nuclear fuel from the reactor vessel to the spent nuclear fuel pool; NRC regulatory approval for the transfer of the Palisades and Big Rock Point operating and independent spent fuel storage installation licenses; receipt of a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS; and, the Pilgrim transaction having closed. In December 2020, Entergy and Holtec submitted a license transfer application to the NRC requesting approval to transfer the Palisades and Big Rock Point licenses from Entergy to Holtec. The NRC has indicated that it expects to complete its review of the application by January 2022. In February 2021 the Michigan Attorney General; the Environmental Law & Policy Center; and Beyond Nuclear, Michigan Safe Energy Future, and Don’t Waste Michigan filed with the NRC petitions to intervene and requests for hearing challenging the license transfer application.

Subject to the above conditions, the Palisades transaction is expected to close by the end of 2022. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy’s adjusted net investment in Palisades was $75 million. The primary variables in the ultimate loss or gain that Entergy will incur on the transaction are the values of the nuclear decommissioning trust and the asset retirement obligation revision. See Note 14 toobligations at closing, the financial statements for discussionresults from plant operations until the closing, and the level of the updated calculationany unrealized deferred tax balances at closing. Palisades completed its final refueling outage in October 2020.

13

Table of the liability amortization associated with the PPAContents
Entergy Corporation and discussion of the impairment charges associated with the decision to cease operations earlier than expected.Subsidiaries

Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Costs Associated with Exit of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities Strategic TransactionsBusiness


Entergy incurred approximately $113$71 million in costs in 2017 and $952020, $91 million in costs in 20162019, and $139 million in costs in 2018 associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size ofexit the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’Commodities merchant fleet,power business, primarily employee retention and severance expenses and other benefits-related costs, and contracted economic development contributions. Entergy expects to incur employee retention and severance expenses of approximately $165$40 million in 2018,2021 and approximately $205$15 million from 2019 through mid-2022in 2022 associated with these strategic transactions.the exit from the merchant power business. See Note 13 to the financial statements for further discussion of these costs.


In 2017, Entergy Wholesale Commodities incurred $19 million in 2020, $100 million in 2019, and $532 million in 2018 of impairment charges related to nuclear fuel spending, nuclear refueling outage spending, and expenditures for capital assets, of $0.5 billion.and asset retirement obligation revisions. These costs were charged to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired value of certain of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size ofexit the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’Commodities merchant fleet.power business. Entergy expects to continue to incur costs associated with nuclear fuel-related spending and expenditures forcharge Indian Point Energy Center capital assets and, except for Palisades, expects to continue to charge theseasset costs to expense as incurred because Entergy expects theits value of the plants to continue to be impaired.In 2016, Entergy Wholesale Commodities incurred impairment charges of $2.8 billion primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Palisades, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair values. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of thesethe impairment charges.


Entergy Wholesale Commodities Authorizations to Operate Indian Point

In April 2007, Entergy submitted to the NRC a joint application to renew the operating licenses for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 for an additional 20 years. The original expiration dates of the NRC operating licenses for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 were in September 2013 and December 2015, respectively. While the NRC staff reviews the license renewal applications, Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3’s initial license terms have expired and the plants are operating under “timely renewal,” which is a federal statutory rule of general applicability providing for extension of a license for which a renewal application has been timely filed with the licensing agency.

In January 2017, Entergy reached a settlement with New York State, several State agencies, and Riverkeeper, Inc., under which Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 will cease commercial operation by April 30, 2020 and April 30, 2021, respectively, subject to certain conditions, including New York State’s withdrawal of opposition to Indian Point’s license renewals and issuance of contested permits and similar authorizations. See Note 14 to the financial statements for a discussion of the impairment and related charges associated with the settlement with New York State.

The Indian Point settlement required New York State agencies to issue environmental certifications needed for license renewal and a renewed water discharge permit based on current plant configuration. It also required the New York State Attorney General and Riverkeeper to withdraw their contentions pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). In exchange, Entergy commits to cease commercial operation of Indian Point 2 by April 30, 2020 and Indian Point 3 by April 30, 2021. These actions have been completed, all New York State approvals required for the NRC to issue renewed licenses have been granted, and the ASLB has terminated proceedings before it following the withdrawal of pending contentions. The NRC is not expected to issue renewed licenses earlier than third quarter 2018, as its staff must complete updates to the record on environmental and safety matters (a supplement to the final supplemental environmental impact statement and a supplement to the final safety evaluation report).

18

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Operations may be extended up to four additional years for each unit by mutual agreement of Entergy and New York State based on an exigent reliability need for Indian Point generation. In accordance with the FERC-approved tariff of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), Entergy submitted to the NYISO a notice of generator deactivation based on the dates in the settlement (no later than April 30, 2020 for Indian Point Unit 2 and April 30, 2021 for Indian Point Unit 3). In December 2017, NYISO issued a report stating there will not be a system reliability need following the deactivation of Indian Point. The NYISO also has advised that it will perform an analysis of the potential competitive impacts of the proposed retirement under provisions of its tariff. The deadline for the NYISO to make a withholding determination is in dispute and is pending before the FERC.

In addition to contractually agreeing to cease commercial operations early, in February 2017 Entergy filed with the NRC an amendment to its license renewal application changing the term of the requested licenses to coincide with the latest possible extension by mutual agreement based on exigent reliability needs: April 30, 2024 for Indian Point 2 and April 30, 2025 for Indian Point 3. If Entergy reasonably determines that the NRC will treat the amendment other than as a routine amendment, Entergy may withdraw the amendment.

Other provisions of the settlement include termination of all then-existing investigations of Indian Point by the agencies signing the agreement, which include the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of State, the New York State Department of Public Service, the New York State Department of Health, and the New York State Attorney General. The settlement recognizes the right of New York State agencies to pursue new investigations and enforcement actions with respect to new circumstances or existing conditions that become materially exacerbated.

Another provision of the settlement obligates Entergy to establish a $15 million fund for environmental projects and community support. Apportionment and allocation of funds to beneficiaries are to be determined by mutual agreement of New York State and Entergy. The settlement recognizes New York State’s right to perform an annual inspection of Indian Point, with scope and timing to be determined by mutual agreement.

In May 2017 a plaintiff filed two parallel state court appeals challenging New York State’s actions in signing and implementing the Indian Point settlement with Entergy on the basis that the State failed to perform sufficient environmental analysis of its actions. All signatories to the settlement agreement, including the Entergy affiliates that hold NRC licenses for Indian Point, were named. The appeals were voluntarily dismissed in November 2017.

Liquidity and Capital Resources


This section discusses Entergy’s capital structure, capital spending plans and other uses of capital, sources of capital, and the cash flow activity presented in the cash flow statement.


Capital Structure


Entergy’s capitalizationdebt to capital ratio is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital ratio for Entergy as of December 31, 2017 is primarily due to an increasethe net issuance of debt in commercial paper2020. See Note 5 to the financial statements for a discussion of long-term debt.
 December 31,
2020
December 31,
2019
Debt to capital68.3%65.5%
Effect of excluding securitization bonds(0.2%)(0.4%)
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)68.1%65.1%
Effect of subtracting cash(1.7%)(0.5%)
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)66.4%64.6%

(a)Calculation excludes the Arkansas, Louisiana, New Orleans, and Texas securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas, respectively.

21.4% of the debt outstanding in 2017 as compared to 2016.
 2017 2016
Debt to capital67.1% 64.8%
Effect of excluding securitization bonds(0.8%) (1.0%)
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)66.3%
63.8%
Effect of subtracting cash(1.1%) (2.0%)
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)65.2%
61.8%

(a)Calculation excludes the Arkansas, Louisiana, New Orleans, and Texas securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas, respectively.

19

Table of Contents
at December 31, 2020 is at the parent company, Entergy Corporation, 78.0% is at the Utility, and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


0.6% is at Entergy Wholesale Commodities. Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents. Debt consists of notes payable and commercial paper, capitalfinance lease obligations, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion. Capital consists of debt, common shareholders’ equity, and subsidiaries’ preferred stock without sinking fund. Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents. Entergy uses the debt to capital ratios excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes they provide useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy’s financial condition because the securitization bonds are non-recourse to Entergy, as more fully described in Note 5 to the financial statements. Entergy also uses the net debt to net capital ratio excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.

14

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

The Utility operating companies and System Energy seek to optimize their capital structures in accordance with regulatory requirements and to control their cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings. To the extent that their operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a dividend to their parent, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the capital structure. To the extent that their operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, the Utility operating companies and System Energy may issue incremental debt or reduce dividends, or both, to maintain their capital structures. In addition, Entergy may make equity contributions to the Utility operating companies and System Energy to maintain their capital structures in certain circumstances such as financing of large transactions or payments that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reduced dividends.

Long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion, makes up most of Entergy’s total debt outstanding. Following are Entergy’s long-term debt principal maturities and estimated interest payments as of December 31, 2017.2020. To estimate future interest payments for variable rate debt, Entergy used the rate as of December 31, 2017.2020. The amounts below include payments on System Energy’s Grand Gulf sale-leaseback transaction, which are included in long-term debt on the balance sheet.


Long-term debt maturities and estimated interest payments2021202220232024-2025after 2025
 (In Millions)
Utility$1,761 $1,166 $2,938 $2,800 $20,943 
Entergy Wholesale Commodities142 — — — — 
Parent and Other99 737 73 1,102 2,589 
Total$2,002 $1,903 $3,011 $3,902 $23,532 
Long-term debt maturities and estimated interest payments 2018 2019 2020 2021-2022 after 2022
  (In Millions)
Utility 
$1,427
 
$1,430
 
$927
 
$2,234
 
$15,102
Entergy Wholesale Commodities 3
 3
 106
 
 
Parent and Other 76
 76
 520
 953
 832
Total 
$1,506
 
$1,509
 
$1,553
 
$3,187
 
$15,934


Note 5 to the financial statements provides more detail concerning long-term debt outstanding.


Entergy Corporation has in place a credit facility that has a borrowing capacity of $3.5 billion and expires in August 2022.September 2024. The facility permitsincludes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against $20 million of the total borrowing capacity of the credit facility. The commitment fee is currently 0.225% of the undrawn commitment amount. Commitment fees and interest rates on loans under the credit facility can fluctuate depending on the senior unsecured debt ratings of Entergy Corporation. The weighted average interest rate for the year ended December 31, 20172020 was 2.55%2.35% on the drawn portion of the facility.


As of December 31, 2017,2020, amounts outstanding and capacity available under the $3.5 billion credit facility are:
CapacityBorrowingsLetters of CreditCapacity Available
(In Millions)
$3,500$165$6$3,329
Capacity Borrowings Letters of Credit Capacity Available
(In Millions)
$3,500 $210 $6 $3,284


A covenant in Entergy Corporation’s credit facility requires Entergy to maintain a consolidated debt ratio, as defined, of 65% or less of its total capitalization.  The calculation of this debt ratio under Entergy Corporation’s credit facility is different than the calculation of the debt to capital ratio above. One such difference is that it excludes the effects, among other things, of certain impairments related to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear generation assets. Entergy is currently in compliance with the covenant and expects to remain in compliance with this covenant. If Entergy fails to meet this ratio, or if Entergy or one of the Utility operating companies (except Entergy New Orleans) defaults on other indebtedness or is in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, an acceleration of the Entergy Corporation credit facility’s maturity date may occur.


2015

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Entergy Corporation has a commercial paper program with a Board-approved program limit of up to$2 billion. As of December 31, 2017,2020, Entergy Corporation had $1.467$1.627 billion of commercial paper outstanding. The weighted-average interest rate for the year ended December 31, 20172020 was 1.49%1.39%.


CapitalFinance lease obligations are a minimal part of Entergy’s overall capital structure. Following are Entergy’s payment obligations under those leases.
 2021202220232024-2025after 2025
 (In Millions)
Finance lease payments$14$13$12$18$17
 2018 2019 2020 2021-2022 after 2022
 (In Millions)
Capital lease payments$3 $3 $3 $6 $19


The capital leasesLeases are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.


Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each had credit facilities available as of December 31, 20172020 as follows:
CompanyExpiration DateAmount of FacilityInterest Rate (a)Amount Drawn
as of
December 31, 2020
Letters of Credit
Outstanding as of
December 31, 2020
Entergy ArkansasApril 2021$25 million (b)1.27%
Entergy ArkansasSeptember 2024$150 million (c)1.27%
Entergy LouisianaSeptember 2024$350 million (c)1.27%
Entergy MississippiApril 2021$10 million (d)1.65%
CompanyEntergy MississippiExpiration DateApril 2021Amount of Facility$35 million (d)Interest Rate (a)1.65%
Amount Drawn
 as of December 31, 2017
Letters of Credit Outstanding as of December 31, 2017
Entergy ArkansasMississippiApril 20182021$2037.5 million (b)(d)2.82%1.65%
Entergy ArkansasNew OrleansAugust 2022November 2021$25 million (c)1.42%$0.8 million
Entergy TexasSeptember 2024$150 million (c)2.82%1.65%
Entergy LouisianaAugust 2022$3501.3 million (c)2.82%$9.1 million
Entergy MississippiMay 2018$10 million (d)3.07%
Entergy MississippiMay 2018$20 million (d)3.07%
Entergy MississippiMay 2018$35 million (d)3.07%
Entergy MississippiMay 2018$37.5 million (d)3.07%
Entergy New OrleansNovember 2018$25 million (c)3.04%$0.8 million
Entergy TexasAugust 2022$150 million (c)3.07%$25.6 million


(a)The interest rate is the estimated interest rate as of December 31, 2017 that would have been applied to outstanding borrowings under the facility.
(b)Borrowings under this Entergy Arkansas credit facility may be secured by a security interest in its accounts receivable at Entergy Arkansas’s option.
(c)The credit facility permits the issuance of letters of credit against a portion of the borrowing capacity of the facility as follows: $5 million for Entergy Arkansas; $15 million for Entergy Louisiana; $10 million for Entergy New Orleans; and $30 million for Entergy Texas. 
(d)Borrowings under the Entergy Mississippi credit facilities may be secured by a security interest in its accounts receivable at Entergy Mississippi’s option. 

(a)The interest rate is the estimated interest rate as of December 31, 2020 that would have been applied to outstanding borrowings under the facility.
(b)Borrowings under this Entergy Arkansas credit facility may be secured by a security interest in its accounts receivable at Entergy Arkansas’s option.
(c)The credit facility includes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against a portion of the borrowing capacity of the facility as follows: $5 million for Entergy Arkansas; $15 million for Entergy Louisiana; $10 million for Entergy New Orleans; and $30 million for Entergy Texas.
(d)Borrowings under the Entergy Mississippi credit facilities may be secured by a security interest in its accounts receivable at Entergy Mississippi’s option.

Each of the credit facilities requires the Registrant Subsidiary borrower to maintain a debt ratio, as defined, of 65% or less of its total capitalization. Each Registrant Subsidiary is in compliance with this covenant.


16

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
In addition, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each entered into one or more uncommitted standby letter of credit facilities as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO. Following is a summary of the uncommitted standby letter of credit facilities as of December 31, 2017:

21

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


2020:
CompanyAmount of Uncommitted FacilityLetter of Credit FeeLetters of Credit Issued as of December 31, 2017 2020
(a) (b)
Entergy Arkansas$25 million0.70%0.78%$1.01 million
Entergy Louisiana$125 million0.70%0.78%$29.72.2 million
Entergy Mississippi$4065 million0.70%0.78%$15.31 million
Entergy New Orleans$15 million1.00%$1.41 million
Entergy Texas$50 million0.70%$22.86.2 million
(a)As of December 31, 2017, letters of credit posted with MISO covered financial transmission right exposure of $0.2 million for Entergy Arkansas, $0.1 million for Entergy Mississippi, and $0.05

(a)As of December 31, 2020, letters of credit posted with MISO covered financial transmission right exposure of $0.3 million for Entergy Louisiana, $0.2 million for Entergy Mississippi, $0.2 million for Entergy New Orleans, and $0.5 million for Entergy Texas. See Note 15 to the financial statements for discussion of financial transmission rights.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee has a credit facility guaranteed by Entergy Corporation with a borrowing capacity of $145 million that expires in November 2020. As of December 31, 2017, $104 million in cash borrowings were outstanding under the credit facility.  The weighted average interest rate for the year ended December 31, 2017 was 2.64% on the drawn portion of the facility.  Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee also had an uncommitted credit facility guaranteed by Entergy Corporation with a borrowing capacity of $85 million that expired in January 2018. As of December 31, 2017, there were no cash borrowings outstanding under the credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of financial transmission rights.
(b)As of December 31, 2020, in addition to the Vermont Yankee$1 million MISO letter of credit, facilities.Entergy Mississippi has $1 million of non-MISO letters of credit outstanding under this facility.

Operating Lease Obligations and Guarantees of Unconsolidated Obligations


Entergy has a minimal amount of operating lease obligations and guarantees in support of unconsolidated obligations. Entergy’s guarantees in support of unconsolidated obligations are not likely to have a material effect on Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Following are Entergy’s payment obligations as of December 31, 20172020 on non-cancelable operating leases with a term over one year:
 2021202220232024-2025after 2025
 (In Millions)
Operating lease payments$66$57$47$59$21
 2018 2019 2020 2021-2022 after 2022
 (In Millions)
Operating lease payments$80 $83 $67 $102 $97


Operating leasesLeases are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.


Summary of Contractual Obligations of Consolidated Entities


Contractual Obligations20212022-20232024-2025after 2025Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)$2,002 $4,914 $3,902 $23,532 $34,350 
Finance lease payments (b)$14 $25 $18 $17 $74 
Operating leases (b) (c)$66 $104 $59 $21 $250 
Purchase obligations (d)$1,182 $2,076 $1,651 $3,541 $8,450 

(a)Includes estimated interest payments. Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.
(c)Does not include power purchase agreements that are accounted for as leases that are included in purchase obligations.
(d)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services. Almost all of the total are fuel and purchased power obligations.

17
Contractual Obligations 2018 2019-2020 2021-2022 after 2022 Total
  (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a) 
$1,506
 
$3,062
 
$3,187
 
$15,934
 
$23,689
Capital lease payments (b) 
$3
 
$6
 
$6
 
$19
 
$34
Operating leases (b) (c) 
$80
 
$150
 
$102
 
$97
 
$429
Purchase obligations (d) 
$1,394
 
$2,485
 
$1,992
 
$4,728
 
$10,599

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.
(c)Does not include power purchase agreements that are accounted for as leases that are included in purchase obligations.
(d)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  Almost all of the total are fuel and purchased power obligations.


22

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


In addition to the contractual obligations stated above, Entergy currently expects to contribute approximately $352.1$356 million to its pension plans and approximately $52.3$39.9 million to other postretirement plans in 2018,2021, although the 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021. See “Critical Accounting Estimates - Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below and Note 11 for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.


Also in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy has $916$979 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.


Capital Funds Agreement

Pursuant to an agreement with certain creditors, Entergy Corporation has agreed to supply System Energy with sufficient capital to:
maintain System Energy’s equity capital at a minimum of 35% of its total capitalization (excluding short-term debt);
permit the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf;
pay in full all System Energy indebtedness for borrowed money when due; and
enable System Energy to make payments on specific System Energy debt, under supplements to the agreement assigning System Energy’s rights in the agreement as security for the specific debt.

Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital


Following are the amounts of Entergy’s planned construction and other capital investments by operating segment for 20182021 through 2023.
Planned construction and capital investments202120222023
 (In Millions)
Utility:   
Generation$1,080 $1,155 $2,030 
Transmission720 610 675 
Distribution1,180 1,350 1,560 
Utility Support495 440 335 
Total3,475 3,555 4,600 
Entergy Wholesale Commodities and Other10 
Total$3,485 $3,560 $4,605 

In addition to the planned spending in the table above, the Utility also expects to pay for $1,055 million of capital investments in 2021 related to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration work that have been accrued as of December 31, 2020.
Planned construction and capital investments 2018 2019 2020
  (In Millions)
Utility:      
Generation 
$1,590
 
$1,410
 
$1,245
Transmission 990
 865
 735
Distribution 860
 1,030
 945
Utility Support 480
 335
 375
Total 3,920
 3,640
 3,300
Entergy Wholesale Commodities 245
 75
 35
Total 
$4,165
 
$3,715
 
$3,335


Planned construction and capital investments refer to amounts Entergy plans to spend on routine capital projects that are necessary to support reliability of its service, equipment, or systems and to support normal customer growth, and includes spending for the nuclear and non-nuclear plants at Entergy Wholesale Commodities.growth. In addition to routine capital projects, they also refer to amounts Entergy plans to spend on non-routine capital investments for which Entergy is either contractually obligated, has Board approval, or otherwise expects to make to satisfy regulatory or legal requirements. Amounts include the following types of construction and capital investments:


Investments in renewables and other generation, including the St. Charles Power Station, Lake Charles Power Station, New Orleans Power Station,Sunflower Solar Facility, Searcy Solar Facility, Walnut Bend Solar Facility, West Memphis Solar Facility, Liberty County Solar Facility, and MontgomeryHardin County Power Station, each discussed below,Peaking Facility, and potential construction of additional generation.
Entergy Wholesale Commodities investments associated with specific investments such as component replacements, software and security, and dry cask storage.

23

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Investments in Entergy’s Utility nuclear fleet.
Transmission spending to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth.
Distribution spending to enhance reliability and improve service to customers, including investment to support advanced metering.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities investments such as component replacements, software and security, and dry cask storage.

For the next several years, the Utility’s owned generating capacity is projected to be adequate to meet MISO reserve requirements; however, in the longer-term additional supply resources will be needed, and its supply plan initiative
18

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
will continue to seek to transform its generation portfolio with new generation resources.  Opportunities resulting from the supply plan initiative, including new projects or the exploration of alternative financing sources, could result in increases or decreases in the capital expenditure estimates given above. Estimated capital expenditures are also subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of business restructuring, regulatory constraints and requirements, environmental regulations, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital.


St. Charles Power StationRenewables


Sunflower Solar Facility

In August 2015,November 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed withMississippi announced that it signed an agreement for the LPSCpurchase of an application seeking certificationapproximately 100 MW solar photovoltaic facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Sunflower County, Mississippi.  The estimated base purchase price is approximately $138.4 million.  The estimated total investment, including the public necessity and convenience would be served by the construction of the St. Charles Power Station, a nominal 980 megawatt combined-cycle generating unit, on land adjacent to the existing Little Gypsy plant in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. It is currently estimated to cost $869 million to construct, including transmission interconnectionbase purchase price and other related costs.costs, for Entergy Mississippi to acquire the Sunflower Solar Facility is approximately $153.2 million. The LPSCpurchase is contingent upon, among other things, obtaining necessary approvals, including full cost recovery, from applicable federal and state regulatory and permitting agencies.  The project is being built by Sunflower County Solar Project, LLC, an indirect subsidiary of Recurrent Energy, LLC. Entergy Mississippi will purchase the facility upon mechanical completion and after the other purchase contingencies have been met.  In December 2018, Entergy Mississippi filed a joint petition with Sunflower Solar Project with the MPSC for Sunflower Solar Project to construct and for Entergy Mississippi to acquire and thereafter own, operate, improve, and maintain the solar facility.  Entergy Mississippi proposed revisions to its formula rate plan that would provide for a mechanism, the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, in the formula rate plan to recover the non-fuel related costs of additional owned capacity acquired by Entergy Mississippi, including the annual ownership costs of the Sunflower Solar Facility.  In December 2019 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s proposed revisions to its formula rate plan to provide for an interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism. Recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment requires MPSC approval for each new resource. In August 2019 consultants retained by the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed a report expressing concerns regarding the project economics. In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi filed supplemental testimony addressing questions and observations raised by the consultants retained by the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and proposing an alternative structure for the transaction that would reduce its cost. A hearing before the MPSC was held in March 2020. In April 2020 the MPSC issued an order approving certification of St. Charles Power Station in December 2016. Constructionthe Sunflower Solar Facility and its recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, subject to certain conditions including: (i) that Entergy Mississippi pursue a partnership structure through which the partnership would acquire and own the facility under the build-own-transfer agreement and (ii) that if Entergy Mississippi does not consummate the partnership structure under the terms of the order, there will be a cap of $136 million on the level of recoverable costs. Closing is in progress and commercial operation is estimatedtargeted to occur by mid-2019.the end of 2021.


Lake Charles Power StationSearcy Solar Facility


In November 2016,March 2019, Entergy LouisianaArkansas announced that it signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW solar energy facility that will be sited on approximately 800 acres in White County near Searcy, Arkansas.  The purchase is contingent upon, among other things, obtaining necessary approvals from applicable federal and state regulatory and permitting agencies.  The project is being constructed by a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources.  Entergy Arkansas will purchase the facility upon mechanical completion and after the other purchase contingencies have been met.  Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2021. In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed an applicationa petition with the LPSCAPSC seeking certificationa finding that the public convenience and necessity would be served by the construction of the Lake Charles Power Station, a nominal 994 megawatt combined-cycle generating unit in Westlake, Louisiana, on land adjacent to the existing Nelson plant in Calcasieu Parish. The current estimated cost of the Lake Charles Power Station is $872 million, including estimated costs of transmission interconnection and other related costs. In May 2017 the parties to the proceeding agreed to an uncontested stipulation finding that construction of the Lake Charles Power Stationtransaction is in the public interest and authorizing an in-service rate recovery plan.requesting all necessary approvals. In July 2017September 2019 other parties filed testimony largely supporting the LPSCresource acquisition but disputing Entergy Arkansas’s proposed method of cost recovery. Entergy Arkansas filed its rebuttal testimony in October 2019. In February 2020, Entergy Arkansas, the Attorney General, and the APSC general staff filed a partial settlement agreement asking the APSC to approve, based on the record in the proceeding, all issues except certain issues that are submitted to the APSC for determination. In April 2020 the APSC issued an order unanimously approving the stipulation and approved certification of the unit. Construction is in progress and commercial operation is expected to occur by mid-2020.

New Orleans Power Station

In June 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking a public interest determination and authorization to construct the New Orleans Power Station, a 226 MW advanced combustion turbine in New Orleans, Louisiana, at the site of the existing Michoud generating facility, which was retired effective May 31, 2016. In January 2017 several intervenors filed testimony opposing the construction of the New Orleans Power Station on various grounds. In July 2017, Entergy New Orleans submitted a supplemental and amending application to the City Council seeking approval to construct either the originally proposed 226 MW advanced combustion turbine, or alternatively, a 128 MW unit composed of natural gas-fired reciprocating engines and a related cost recovery plan. The application included an updated cost estimate of $232 million for the 226 MW advanced combustion turbine. The cost estimate for the alternative 128 MW unit is $210 million. In addition, the application renewed the commitment to pursue up to 100 MW of renewable resources to serve New Orleans. In testimony filed subsequent to Entergy New Orleans’s supplemental and amending application, several intervenors oppose City Council approval of either alternative, while the City Council advisors and one intervenor support the smaller alternative. A contested hearing was held in December 2017 and post-hearing briefs were filed in January 2018. In February 2018 the City Council Utility Committee adopted a resolution approving construction of the 128 MW unit. The full City Council is expected

24
19

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


approving Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition of the Searcy Solar facility as being in the public interest, but declined to voteapprove Entergy Arkansas’s preferred cost recovery rider mechanism, finding instead, based on the resolution in March 2018. The commercial operation date is dependent onparticular facts and circumstances presented, that the alternative selected by the City Council and the receipt of other permits and approvals. formula rate plan rider was a sufficient recovery mechanism for this resource.


MontgomeryLiberty County Power StationSolar Facility


In October 2016,September 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application with theseeking PUCT seeking certification that the publicapproval to amend Entergy Texas’s certificate of convenience and necessity would be served byto acquire the construction of the Montgomery100 MW Liberty County Power Station, a nominal 993 MW combined-cycle generating unit in Montgomery County, Texas on land adjacent to the existing Lewis Creek plant. The current estimated cost of the Montgomery County Power Station is $937 million, including approximately $111 million of transmission interconnection and network upgrades and other related costs. The independent monitor, who oversaw the request for proposal process, filed testimonySolar Facility and a report affirming that the Montgomery County Power Station was selected through an objective and fair request for proposal process that showed no undue preference to any proposal. In June 2017 parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. The stipulation contemplatesdetermination that Entergy Texas’s levelacquisition of cost-recovery for generation construction costs for Montgomery County Power Stationthe facility through a tax equity partnership is capped at $831 million, subject to certain exclusions such as force majeure events. Transmission interconnection and network upgrades and other related costs are not subject toin the $831 million cap.public interest. In July 2017its preliminary order, the PUCT approveddetermined that, in considering Entergy Texas’s application, it would not specifically address whether Entergy Texas’s use of a tax equity partnership is in the stipulation. Subject to the timely receipt of other permits and approvals, commercial operation is estimated to occur by mid-2021.

Washington Parish Energy Center

In April 2017, Entergy Louisiana signed a purchase and sale agreementpublic interest. A procedural schedule was established with a subsidiary of Calpine Corporation forhearing on the acquisition of a peaking plant. Calpine will construct the plant, which will consist of two natural gas-fired combustion turbine units with a total nominal capacity of approximately 361 MW. The plant, named the Washington Parish Energy Center, will be locatedmerits scheduled in Bogalusa, Louisiana and, subject to permits and approvals,April 2021. Closing is expected to be completedoccur in 2021. Subject to regulatory approvals,2023.

Walnut Bend Solar Facility

In October 2020, Entergy Louisiana will purchase the plant once it is complete for an estimated total investment of approximately $261 million, including transmission and other related costs. In May 2017, Entergy LouisianaArkansas filed an applicationa petition with the LPSCAPSC seeking certificationa finding that the purchase of the plant.100 MW Walnut Bend Solar Facility is in the public interest. Entergy Arkansas requested a decision by the APSC by June 15, 2021 and primarily requests cost recovery through the formula rate plan rider. A procedural schedule has beenwas established with a hearing scheduled in April 2021. Closing is expected to occur in 2022.

West Memphis Solar Facility

In January 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the deadlines recently extended andAPSC seeking a finding that the hearing continued from March 2018 until June 2018purchase of the 180 MW West Memphis Solar Facility is in order to allow the parties an opportunity to reach settlement.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)

See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of filings madepublic interest. Entergy Arkansas requested a decision by the Utility operating companies regardingAPSC by September 7, 2021 and primarily requests cost recovery through the deployment of AMI. The filings included estimates of implementation costs for AMI of $208 million for Entergy Arkansas, $330 million for Entergy Louisiana, $132 million for Entergy Mississippi, $75 million for Entergy New Orleans, and $132 million for Entergy Texas.formula rate plan rider. Closing is expected to occur in 2023.


Dividends and Stock Repurchases


Declarations of dividends on Entergy’s common stock are made at the discretion of the Board. Among other things, the Board evaluates the level of Entergy’s common stock dividends based upon earnings per share from the Utility operating segment and the Parent and Other portion of the business, financial strength, and future investment opportunities. At its January 20182021 meeting, the Board declared a dividend of $0.89$0.95 per share. Entergy paid $629$748 million in 2017, $6122020, $712 million in 2016,2019, and $599$648 million in 20152018 in cash dividends on its common stock.


In accordance with Entergy’s stock-based compensation plans, Entergy periodically grants stock options, restricted stock, performance units, and restricted stock unit awards to key employees, which may be exercised to obtain shares of Entergy’s common stock. According to the plans, these shares can be newly issued shares, treasury stock, or shares purchased on the open market. Entergy’s management has been authorized by the Board to repurchase on the open market shares up to an amount sufficient to fund the exercise of grants under the plans.


25

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



In addition to the authority to fund grant exercises, the Board has authorized share repurchase programs to enable opportunistic purchases in response to market conditions. In October 2010 the Board granted authority for a $500 million share repurchase program. As of December 31, 2017,2020, $350 million of authority remains under the $500 million share repurchase program. The amount of repurchases may vary as a result of material changes in business results or capital spending or new investment opportunities, or if limitations in the credit markets continue for a prolonged period.


20

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
Sources of Capital


Entergy’s sources to meet its capital requirements and to fund potential investments include:


internally generated funds;
cash on hand ($7811,759 million as of December 31, 2017)2020);
securities issuances;storm reserve escrow accounts;
debt and equity issuances in the capital markets, including debt issuances to refund or retire currently outstanding or maturing indebtedness;
bank financing under new or existing facilities or commercial paper; and
sales of assets.


Circumstances such as weather patterns, fuel and purchased power price fluctuations, and unanticipated expenses, including unscheduled plant outages and storms, could affect the timing and level of internally generated funds in the future. In addition to the financings necessary to meet capital requirements and contractual obligations, the Registrant Subsidiaries expect to continue, when economically feasible, to retire higher-cost debt and replace it with lower-cost debt if market conditions permit.


Provisions within the articles of incorporationorganizational documents relating to preferred stock or membership interests of certain of Entergy Corporation’s subsidiaries could restrict the payment of cash dividends or other distributions on their common and preferred stock.equity. All debt and common and preferred equity issuances by the Registrant Subsidiaries require prior regulatory approval and their preferred equity and debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in corporate charters, bond indentures and other agreements. Entergy believes that the Registrant Subsidiaries have sufficient capacity under these tests to meet foreseeable capital needs.


The FERC has jurisdiction over securities issuances by the Utility operating companies and System Energy, except securities with maturities longer than one year issued by Entergy Arkansas, which is subject to the jurisdiction of the APSC.Energy. The City Council has concurrent jurisdiction over Entergy New Orleans’s securities issuances with maturities longer than one year. The APSC has concurrent jurisdiction over Entergy Arkansas’s issuances of securities secured by Arkansas property, including first mortgage bond issuances. No regulatory approvals are necessary for Entergy Corporation to issue securities. The current FERC-authorized short-term borrowing limits are effective through October 2019.and long-term financing authorization for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy have obtained long-term financing authorizations from the FERC that extendare effective through October 2019.July 2022. Entergy Arkansas has obtained long-termfirst mortgage bond/secured financing authorization from the APSC that extends through December 2018.2022. Entergy New Orleans also has obtained long-term financing authorization from the City Council that extends through June 2018.July 2022. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy each have obtained long-term financing authorizationsauthorization from the FERC that extendextends through October 2019July 2022 for issuances by its respectivethe nuclear fuel company variable interest entity.entities. In addition to borrowings from commercial banks, the Registrant Subsidiaries may also borrow from the Entergy System money pool and from other internal short-term borrowing arrangements. The money pool and the other internal borrowing arrangements are inter-company borrowing arrangements designed to reduce Entergy’s subsidiaries’ dependence on external short-term borrowings. Borrowings from internal and external short-term borrowings combined may not exceed the FERC-authorized limits. See Notes 4 and 5 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy’s borrowing limits, authorizations, and amounts outstanding.



Equity Issuances and Equity Distribution Program

Entergy Corporation currently expects to issue approximately $2.5 billion of equity through 2024. Entergy is considering various methods, including, among others, at the market distributions, block trades, and preferred equity issuances. In January 2021, Entergy entered into an equity distribution sales agreement with several counterparties establishing an at the market equity distribution program, pursuant to which Entergy may offer and sell from time to time shares of its common stock. The sales agreement provides that, in addition to the issuance and sale of shares of Entergy common stock, Entergy may also enter into forward sale agreements for the sale of its
26
21

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


common stock. The aggregate number of shares of common stock sold under this sales agreement and under any forward sale agreement may not exceed an aggregate gross sales price of $1 billion.

Cash Flow Activity


As shown in Entergy’s Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 were as follows:
 202020192018
 (In Millions)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period$426 $481 $781 
Net cash provided by (used in):   
Operating activities2,690 2,817 2,385 
Investing activities(4,772)(4,510)(4,106)
Financing activities3,415 1,638 1,421 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents1,333 (55)(300)
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$1,759 $426 $481 
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Millions)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
$1,188
 
$1,351
 
$1,422
 

    
Net cash provided by (used in): 
  
  
Operating activities2,624
 2,999
 3,291
Investing activities(3,841) (3,850) (2,609)
Financing activities810
 688
 (753)
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents(407) (163) (71)
      
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
$781
 
$1,188
 
$1,351


2020 Compared to 2019

Operating Activities

2017 Compared to 2016


Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased by $375$127 million in 20172020 primarily due to:


lower Entergy Wholesale Commodities net revenue, excluding the effectan increase of revenues resulting from the FitzPatrick reimbursement agreement with Exelon,$224 million in 2017storm spending in 2020 as compared to 2019 primarily due to spending in 2020 on Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration. See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for discussion of storm restoration efforts;
the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs in 2020 as compared to the prior year, as discussed above.year. See Note 142 to the financial statements for a discussion of fuel and purchased power cost recovery;
lower collections of receivables from customers, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
the effect of less favorable weather on billed Utility sales in 2020; and
an increase of $32 million in incentive-based compensation payments in 2020.

The decrease was partially offset by:

the decrease in the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to Utility customers. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the reimbursement agreement;regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act;
an increasea decrease of $141 million in spending on nuclear refueling outages in 2017 as compared to the prior year;
an increase of $94$86 million in severance and retention payments in 20172020 as compared to the prior year.2019. See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” above for a discussion of management’s strategy to reduce the size ofexit the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet;
power business;
a refunddecrease of $83 million in pension contributions in 2020 as compared to customers in January 2017 of approximately $71 million as a result of the settlement approved by the LPSC related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project.2019. See Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 211 to the financial statements for discussion of the settlementqualified pension and refund;other postretirement benefits funding;
an increase of $71 million in proceeds of $23 million received in 2017 compared to proceeds of $102 million received in 2016 from the DOE resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously expensed. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation; and
an increasethe timing of $20 million in pension contributions in 2017. See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 11payments to the financial statements for discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.
vendors;

The decrease was partially offset by:

income tax refunds of $13 million in 2017 compared to income tax payments of $95 million in 2016. Entergy received income tax refunds in 2017 resulting from the carryback of net operating losses. Entergy made income tax payments in 2016 related to the effect of the 2006-2007 IRS audit and for jurisdictions that do not have net operating loss carryovers or jurisdictions in which the utilization of net operating loss carryovers are limited. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a discussion of the income tax audit;
a decrease of $68$34 million in interest paid in 2017 as compared to the prior year primarily due to an interest payment of $60 million made in March 2016 related to the purchase of a beneficial interest in the Waterford

spending on nuclear refueling outages; and
27
22

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


3 leased assets. See Note 10 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s purchase of a beneficial interest in the Waterford 3 leased assets; and
an increase due to the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs in 2017 as compared to the prior year. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of fuel and purchased power cost recovery.

2016 Compared to 2015

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased by $292 million in 2016 primarily due to:

a decrease due to the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs in 2016 as compared to 2015. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of fuel and purchased power cost recovery;
lower Entergy Wholesale Commodities net revenue in 2016 as compared to 2015, as discussed previously; and
an increase of $83$25 million in interest paid in 2016 as compared to 2015 primarily due to an interest payment of $60 million made in March 2016 related to the purchase of a beneficial interest in the Waterford 3 leased assets and an increase in interest expense primarily due to 2016 net debt issuances by various Utility operating companies, partially offset by a decrease in interest paid in 2016 on the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback obligation. See Note 10 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s purchase of a beneficial interest in the Waterford 3 leased assets and for details of the Grand Gulf lease obligation. See Note 5 to the financial statements for a discussion of long-term debt.nuclear insurance refunds.

The decrease was partially offset by:

higher Utility net revenues in 2016 as compared to 2015, as discussed above;
proceeds of $102 million received in 2016 from the DOE resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously expensed. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation;
a decrease of $46 million in spending on nuclear refueling outages in 2016 as compared to 2015; and
a decrease of $19 million in spending related to the shutdown of Vermont Yankee, which ceased power production in December 2014.


Investing Activities

2017 Compared to 2016


Net cash flow used in investing activities decreasedincreased by $9$262 million in 20172020 primarily due to:

an increase of $942 million in storm spending in 2020, primarily on Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration. See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for discussion of storm restoration efforts;
the purchase of Washington Parish Energy Center by Entergy Louisiana in November 2020 for approximately $222 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Washington Parish Energy Center purchase;
an increase of $140 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to investment in the purchasereliability and infrastructure of the Union Power Station for approximately $949distribution system, including increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure;
an increase of $87 million in March 2016nuclear fuel purchases due to variations from year to year in the timing and proceedspricing of $100fuel reload requirements, materials and services deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle;
an increase of $43 million fromprimarily due to changes in collateral posted to provide credit support to secure its obligations under agreements to sell power produced by Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ power plants; and
$25 million in plant upgrades for the saleChoctaw Generating Station in March 2017 of the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon.2020. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union PowerChoctaw Generating Station purchase and the sale of FitzPatrick. purchase.

The decreaseincrease was partially offset by:


an increasea decrease of $827$309 million in construction expenditures, primarily in the Utility business. The increase in construction expenditures in the Utility business is primarily due to an increase of $452 million in fossil-fuelednon-nuclear generation construction expenditures primarily due to higher spending in 20172019 on the St. CharlesMontgomery County Power Station, project and the Lake Charles Power Station, project and a higher scopeJ. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) projects;
the purchase of work performed on various other fossil projectsthe Choctaw Generating Station in 2017 as compared to 2016; October 2019 for approximately $305 million;
an increase of $133$303 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to net receipts from storm reserve escrow accounts;
a higher scopedecrease of non-storm related work performed in 2017 as compared to 2016 and higher storm restoration spending in 2017; an increase of $102 million in nuclear construction expenditures primarily due to increased spending on various nuclear projects in 2017 as compared to 2016; an increase of $101$141 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a higher scopethe timing of work performed on transmission projects in 20172020 as compared to 2016; and 2019;
an increase of $51 million due to increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure in 2017;

28

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

a decrease of $144$70 million in proceeds received from the DOE in 20172020 as compared to the prior year resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously capitalized. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation; and
a decrease of $63$44 million in nuclear fuel purchases due to variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements, material and services deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle.

2016 Compared to 2015

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased by $1,241 million in 2016 primarily due to:

the purchase of the Union Power Station for approximately $949 million in March 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase;
proceeds of approximately $490 million from the sale in December 2015 of Rhode Island State Energy Center. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale; and
an increase of $279 million in construction expenditures, primarily in the Utility business. The increase in construction expenditures in the Utility business is primarily due to an increase of $114 million in transmissioninformation technology construction expenditures primarily due to an overall higher scopedecreased spending on various technology projects; and
a decrease of work performed on transmission projects in 2016 as compared to 2015, an increase of $106$23 million in nuclear construction expenditures primarily due to a higherlower scope of work performed on various nuclear projects in 20162020 as compared to 2015, an increase of $95 million in fossil-fueled generation construction expenditures primarily due to spending on the St. Charles Power Station project in 2016, an increase of $79 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to a higher scope of non-storm related work performed in 2016 as compared to the same period in 2015 and higher storm restoration spending in 2016, and an increase of $65 million in information technology construction expenditures due to various information technology projects and upgrades in 2016. The increase was partially offset by a decrease of $148 million in spending related to compliance with NRC post-Fukushima requirements in the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses.2019.

The increase was partially offset by:

a decrease of $179 million in nuclear fuel purchases due to variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements, material and services deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle;
an increase of $151 million in proceeds received from the DOE in 2016 as compared to the prior year resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously capitalized. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation;
a $71 million NYPA value sharing payment in 2015. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy’s NYPA value sharing agreements; and
the deposit of $64 million into Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve escrow accounts in 2015.


Financing Activities

2017 Compared to 2016


Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased by $122$1,777 million in 20172020 primarily due to:


Entergy’s net issuances of $1,123long-term debt activity providing approximately $4,467 million of commercial papercash in 20172020 compared to net repaymentsproviding approximately $1,685 million in 2019; and
the repurchase in first quarter 2019 of $78$50 million of commercial paperClass A mandatorily redeemable preferred membership units in 2016;Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a wholly-owned Entergy subsidiary, that were held by a third party.
an increase of $95 million resulting from lower redemptions of preferred stock. In 2017, Entergy New Orleans redeemed its $7.8 million of 4.75% Series preferred stock, its $6 million of 5.56% Series preferred stock, and its $6 million of 4.36% Series preferred stock. In 2016, Entergy Arkansas redeemed its $75 million of 6.45%


29
23

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



The increase was partially offset by:
Series preferred
proceeds of $608 million from the issuance of common stock and its $10 millionin May 2019 as a result of 6.08% Series preferred stock and Entergy Mississippi redeemed its $30 millionthe settlement of 6.25% Series preferred stock;equity forwards. See Note 7 to the financial statements for discussion of the equity forward sale agreements;
an increase of $48$324 million in net repayments of commercial paper in 2020 compared to 2019;
a decrease of $52 million in treasury stock issuances in 2017 primarily2020 due to a larger amount of previously repurchased Entergy Corporation common stock issued in 20172019 to satisfy stock option exercises;
an increase of $37 million in common stock dividends paid as a result of an increase in the number of shares outstanding and
net borrowings of $41 million by an increase in the nuclear fuel company variable interest entitiesdividend paid per share in 20172020 compared to net repayments of $1 million in 2016.2019; and

The increase was partially offset by long-term debt activity providing approximately $224 million of cash in 2017 compared to providing approximately $1,489 million of cash in 2016. Included in the long-term debt activity is $490 million in 2017 and $135 million in 2016 for the repayment of borrowings on the Entergy Corporation long-term credit facility.

2016 Compared to 2015

Entergy’s financing activities provided $688 million of cash for 2016 compared to using $753 million of cash for 2015 primarily due to the following activity:

long-term debt activity providing approximately $1,489 million of cash in 2016 compared to providing $41 million of cash in 2015.  Included in the long-term debt activity is net repayments of borrowings of $135 million in 2016 compared to net borrowings of $140 million in 2015 on the Entergy Corporation long-term credit facility;
the issuance of $110$35 million ofaggregate liquidation value 5.375% Series A preferred stock in 2015. See Note 6 to the financial statements for further discussion;
$100 million of common stock repurchased in 2015, as discussed above;
a net increase of $41 million in 2016 in short-term borrowings by the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities; and
a decrease of $21 million resulting from higher repurchase/redemptions of preferred stock. In September 2015, Entergy Louisiana redeemed its $100 million 6.95% Series preferred membership interests, of which $16 million was owned2019 by Entergy Louisiana Holdings, an Entergy subsidiary, and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana repurchased its $10 million Series A 8.25% preferred membership interests as part of a multi-step process to effectuate the Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana business combination.  See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the combination. In 2016, Entergy Arkansas redeemed its $75 million of 6.45% Series preferred stock and its $10 million of 6.08% Series preferred stock and Entergy Mississippi redeemed its $30 million of 6.25% Series preferred stock.Texas.


For the details of Entergy’s commercial paper program, and the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities’ short-term borrowings, see Note 4 to the financial statements. See Note 5 to the financial statements for details of long-term debt.


2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Cash Flow Activity” in Item 7 of Entergy’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020 for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2019 compared to 2018.

Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation


State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery


The rates that the Utility operating companies and System Energy charge for their services significantly influence Entergy’s financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. These companies are regulated and the rates charged to their customers are determined in regulatory proceedings. Governmental agencies, including the APSC, the LPSC, the MPSC, the City Council, the PUCT, and the FERC,PUCT, are primarily responsible for approval of the rates charged to customers. Following is a summary of the Utility operating companies’ authorized returns on common equity:

30

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

CompanyAuthorized Return on Common Equity
Entergy Arkansas9.25% - 10.25%
Entergy Louisiana9.15%9.2% - 10.75%10.4% Electric; 9.45%9.3% - 10.45%10.3% Gas
Entergy Mississippi9.47%8.89% - 11.49%10.93%
Entergy New Orleans10.7%8.85% - 11.5% Electric; 10.25% - 11.25% Gas9.85%
Entergy Texas9.8%9.65%


The Utility operating companies’ base rate, fuel and purchased power cost recovery, and storm cost recovery proceedings are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements.


Federal Regulation


The FERC regulates wholesale sales of electricity rates and interstate transmission of electricity, including rates for System Energy’s sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The current return on equity and capital structure of System Energy are currently the subject of complaints filed by certain of the operating companies’ retail regulators. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%. Prior to each operating company’s termination of participation in the System Agreement (Entergy
24

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
Arkansas in December 2013, Entergy Mississippi in November 2015, and Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each in August 2016), the Utility operating companies engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which was a rate schedule approved by the FERC. Certain of the Utility operating companies’ retail regulators are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC and in federal courts. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the System Agreement proceedings, a complaintcomplaints filed with the FERC challenging System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure, System Energy’s proposed amendmentstreatment of uncertain tax positions and the Grand Gulf sale leaseback arrangement, and a separate request for the FERC to initiate a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.


Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments


Market risk is the risk of changes in the value of commodity and financial instruments, or in future net income or cash flows, in response to changing market conditions. Entergy holds commodity and financial instruments that are exposed to the following significant market risks.


The commodity price risk associated with the sale of electricity by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.
The interest rate and equity price risk associated with Entergy’s investments in pension and other postretirement benefit trust funds. See Note 11 to the financial statements for details regarding Entergy’s pension and other postretirement benefit trust funds.
The interest rate and equity price risk associated with Entergy’s investments in nuclear plant decommissioning trust funds, particularly in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business. See Note 16 to the financial statements for details regarding Entergy’s decommissioning trust funds.
The interest rate risk associated with changes in interest rates as a result of Entergy’s outstanding indebtedness. Entergy manages its interest rate exposure by monitoring current interest rates and its debt outstanding in relation to total capitalization. See Notes 4 and 5 to the financial statements for the details of Entergy’s debt outstanding.


The Utility has limited exposure to the effects of market risk because it operates primarily under cost-based rate regulation. To the extent approved by their retail regulators, the Utility operating companies use commodity and financial instruments to hedge the exposure to price volatility inherent in their purchased power, fuel, and gas purchased for resale costs that are recovered from customers.


31

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Entergy’s commodity and financial instruments are also exposed to credit risk. Credit risk is the risk of loss from nonperformance by suppliers, customers, or financial counterparties to a contract or agreement. Entergy is also exposed to a potential demand on liquidity due to credit support requirements within its supply or sales agreements.

Commodity Price Risk


Power Generation


As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy in the day ahead or spot markets.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities also sells unforced capacity, which allows load-serving entities to meet specified reserve and related requirements placed on them by the ISOs in their respective areas.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward physical power contracts consist of contracts to sell energy only, contracts to sell capacity only, and bundled contracts in which it sells both capacity and energy.  While the terminology and payment mechanics vary in these contracts, each of these types of contracts requires Entergy Wholesale Commodities to deliver MWh of energy, make capacity available, or both. In addition to its forward physical power contracts, Entergy Wholesale Commodities may also usesuse a combination of financial contracts,
25

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

including swaps, collars, and options, to manage forward commodity price risk.  Certain hedge volumes have price downside and upside relative to market price movement.  The contracted minimum, expected value, and sensitivities are provided in the table below to show potential variations. The sensitivities may not reflect the total maximum upside potential from higher market prices. The information contained in the following table represents projections at a point in time and will vary over time based on numerous factors, such as future market prices, contracting activities, and generation. Following is a summary of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ current forward capacity and generation contracts as well as total revenue projections based on market prices as of December 31, 2017.2020.



Entergy Wholesale Commodities Nuclear Portfolio
20212022
Energy
Percent of planned generation under contract (a):
Unit-contingent (b)98%99%
Planned generation (TWh) (c) (d)9.62.8
Average revenue per MWh on contracted volumes:
Expected based on market prices as of December 31, 2020$54.5$47.1
Capacity
Percent of capacity sold forward (e):
Bundled capacity and energy contracts (f)68%97%
Capacity contracts (g)29%—%
Total97%97%
Planned net MW in operation (average) (d)1,158338
Average revenue under contract per kW per month (applies to capacity contracts only)$0.1$—
Total Energy and Capacity Revenues (h)
Expected sold and market total revenue per MWh$54.0$46.8
Sensitivity: -/+ $10 per MWh market price change$53.8 - $54.2$46.7 - $47.0

(a)Percent of planned generation output sold or purchased forward under contracts, forward physical contracts, forward financial contracts, or options that mitigate price uncertainty. Positions that are not classified as hedges are netted in the planned generation under contract.
(b)Transaction under which power is supplied from a specific generation asset; if the asset is not operating, the seller is generally not liable to the buyer for any damages. Certain unit-contingent sales include a guarantee of availability. Availability guarantees provide for the payment to the power purchaser of contract damages, if incurred, in the event the seller fails to deliver power as a result of the failure of the specified generation unit to generate power at or above a specified availability threshold. All of Entergy’s outstanding guarantees of availability provide for dollar limits on Entergy’s maximum liability under such guarantees.
(c)Amount of output expected to be generated by Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear resources considering plant operating characteristics and outage schedules.
(d)Assumes the planned shutdown of Indian Point 3 on April 30, 2021 and planned shutdown of Palisades on May 31, 2022. For a discussion regarding the planned shutdown of the Indian Point 3 and Palisades plants, see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” above.
(e)Percent of planned qualified capacity sold to mitigate price uncertainty under physical or financial transactions.
(f)A contract for the sale of installed capacity and related energy, priced per megawatt-hour sold.
(g)A contract for the sale of an installed capacity product in a regional market.
32
26

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Entergy Wholesale Commodities Nuclear Portfolio

  2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Energy          
Percent of planned generation under contract (a):          
Unit-contingent (b) 98% 91% 51% 74% 67%
Firm LD (c) 9% —% —% —% —%
Offsetting positions (d) (9%) —% —% —% —%
Total 98% 91% 51% 74% 67%
Planned generation (TWh) (e) (f) 27.9 25.5 17.9 9.7 2.8
Average revenue per MWh on contracted volumes:          
Expected based on market prices as of December 31, 2017 $39.1 $40.6 $50.5 $59.2 $58.8
           
Capacity          
Percent of capacity sold forward (g):          
Bundled capacity and energy contracts (h) 22% 25% 36% 69% 99%
Capacity contracts (i) 36% 13% —% —% —%
Total 58% 38% 36% 69% 99%
Planned net MW in operation (average) (f) 3,568 3,167 2,195 1,158 338
Average revenue under contract per kW per month (applies to capacity contracts only) $7.1 $9.1 $— $— $—
           
Total Energy and Capacity Revenues (j)          
Expected sold and market total revenue per MWh $47.0 $46.9 $48.9 $56.1 $47.8
Sensitivity: -/+ $10 per MWh market price change $46.9 - $47.2 $46.0 - $47.8 $44.3 - $53.5 $53.5 - $58.7 $44.5 - $51.1

(a)Percent of planned generation output sold or purchased forward under contracts, forward physical contracts, forward financial contracts, or options that mitigate price uncertainty that may require regulatory approval or approval of transmission rights. Positions that are not classified as hedges are netted in the planned generation under contract.
(b)Transaction under which power is supplied from a specific generation asset; if the asset is not operating, the seller is generally not liable to buyer for any damages. Certain unit-contingent sales include a guarantee of availability. Availability guarantees provide for the payment to the power purchaser of contract damages, if incurred, in the event the seller fails to deliver power as a result of the failure of the specified generation unit to generate power at or above a specified availability threshold.  All of Entergy’s outstanding guarantees of availability provide for dollar limits on Entergy’s maximum liability under such guarantees.
(c)Transaction that requires receipt or delivery of energy at a specified delivery point (usually at a market hub not associated with a specific asset) or settles financially on notional quantities; if a party fails to deliver or receive energy, defaulting party must compensate the other party as specified in the contract,(h)Includes assumptions on converting a portion of which may be capped through the use of risk management products. This also includes option transactions that may expire without being exercised.
(d)Transactions for the purchase of energy, generally to offset a Firm LD transaction.
(e)Amount of output expected to be generated by Entergy Wholesale Commodities resources considering plant operating characteristics, outage schedules, and expected market conditions that affect dispatch.
(f)Assumes the planned shutdown of Pilgrim on May 31, 2019, planned shutdown of Indian Point 2 on April 30, 2020, planned shutdown of Indian Point 3 on April 30, 2021, and planned shutdown of Palisades on May 31,

33

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


2022. Assumes NRC license renewals for two units, as follows (with current license expirations in parentheses): Indian Point 2 (September 2013 and now operating under its period of extended operations while its application is pending) and Indian Point 3 (December 2015 and now operating under its period of extended operations while its application is pending). For a discussion regarding the planned shutdown of the Pilgrim, Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3,portfolio to contracted with fixed price and Palisades plants, see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exitexcludes non-cash revenue from the Merchant Power Business” above. For a discussion regarding the license renewals for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3, see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Authorizations to Operate Indian Point” above.
(g)Percent of planned qualified capacity sold to mitigate price uncertainty under physical or financial transactions.
(h)A contract for the sale of installed capacity and related energy, priced per megawatt-hour sold.
(i)A contract for the sale of an installed capacity product in a regional market.
(j)Includes assumptions on converting a portion of the portfolio to contracted with fixed price cost or discount and excludes non-cash revenue from the amortization of the Palisades below-market purchased power agreement, mark-to-market activity, and service revenues.

Entergy estimates that a positive $10 per MWh change in the annual average energy price in the markets in which the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear business sells power, based on the respective year-end market conditions, planned generation volumes, and hedged positions, would have a corresponding effect on pre-tax income of $3 million in 2018 and would have had a corresponding effect on pre-tax income of $37 million in 2017. A negative $10 per MWh change in the annual average energy price in the markets based on the respective year-end market conditions, planned generation volumes, and hedged positions, would have a corresponding effect on pre-tax income of ($3) million in 2018 and would have had a corresponding effect on pre-tax income of ($31) million in 2017.

Entergy’s purchase of the FitzPatrickPalisades below-market purchased power agreement, mark-to-market activity, and Indian Point 3 plants from NYPA included value sharing agreements with NYPA.  In October 2007, Entergy subsidiaries and NYPA amended and restated the value sharing agreements to clarify and amend certain provisions of the original terms.  Under the amended value sharing agreements, Entergy subsidiaries made annual payments to NYPA based on the generation output of the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants from January 2007 through December 2014.  Entergy subsidiaries paid NYPA $6.59 per MWh for power sold from Indian Point 3, up to an annual cap of $48 million, and $3.91 per MWh for power sold from FitzPatrick, up to an annual cap of $24 million.  The annual payment for each year’s output was due by January 15 of the following year, and the final payment to NYPA was made in January 2015.  Entergy recorded the liability for payments to NYPA as power was generated and sold by Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick.  An amount equal to the liability was recorded to the plant asset account as contingent purchase price consideration for the plants.service revenues.


Some of the agreements to sell the power produced by Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ power plants contain provisions that require an Entergy subsidiary to provide credit support to secure its obligations under the agreements. The Entergy subsidiary is required to provide credit support based upon the difference between the current market prices and contracted power prices in the regions where Entergy Wholesale Commodities sells power. The primary form of credit support to satisfy these requirements is an Entergy Corporation guaranty.guarantee.  Cash and letters of credit are also acceptable forms of credit support. At December 31, 2017,2020, based on power prices at that time, Entergy had liquidity exposure of $167$62 million under the guarantees in place supporting Entergy Wholesale Commodities transactions and $8$6 million of posted cash collateral. In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation’s credit rating to below investment grade, based on power prices as of December 31, 2017,2020, Entergy would have been required to provide approximately $98$30 million of additional cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements. As of December 31, 2017,2020, the liquidity exposure associated with Entergy Wholesale Commodities assurance requirements, including return of previously posted collateral from counterparties, would increase by $372$22 million for a $1 per MMBtu increase in gas prices in both the short- and long-term markets.


As of December 31, 2017,2020, substantially all of the credit exposure associated with the planned energy output under contract for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants through 2022 is with counterparties or their guarantors that have public investment grade credit ratings.




34

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Nuclear Matters


Entergy’s Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses include the ownership and operation of nuclear generating plants and are, therefore, subject to the risks related to such ownership and operation. These include risks related to: the use, storage, and handling and disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive materials; the substantial financial requirements, both for capital investments and operational needs, to position Entergy’s nuclear fleet to meet its operational goals, including the financial requirements to address emerging issues like stress corrosion cracking of certain materials within the plant systems to position Entergy’s nuclear fleet to meet its operational goals; the performance and capacity factors of these nuclear plants; the Fukushima event;risk of an adverse outcome to an expected challenge to the prudence of operations at Grand Gulf; the implementation of plans to cease merchant generation at allexit the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plantsmerchant power business by 2022 and the post-shutdown decommissioning of these plants; regulatory requirements and potential future regulatory changes, including changes affecting the regulations governing nuclear plant ownership, operations, license renewal and amendments, and decommissioning; the performance and capacity factors of these nuclear plants; the availability of interim or permanent sites for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, including the fees charged for such disposal; the sufficiency of nuclear decommissioning trust fund assets and earnings to complete decommissioning of each site when required; and limitations on the amounts and types of insurance commercially available for losses in connection with nuclear plant operations and catastrophic events such as a nuclear accident.


ANONRC Reactor Oversight Process


See Note 8The NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process is a program to collect information about plant performance, assess the financial statementsinformation for discussion ofits safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response. The NRC evaluates plant performance by analyzing two distinct inputs: inspection findings resulting from the NRC’s decisioninspection program and performance indicators reported by the licensee. The evaluations result in March 2015 to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4,placement of each plant in one of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix and the resulting significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site.

Pilgrim

See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the NRC’s decision in September 2015 to place Pilgrim incolumns: “licensee response column,” or Column 4 of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix due to its finding of continuing weaknesses in Pilgrim’s corrective action program that contributed to repeated unscheduled shutdowns and equipment failures.

Indian Point

During the scheduled refueling and maintenance outage at Indian Point 2 in the first quarter 2016, comprehensive inspections were done as part of the aging management program that calls for an in-depth inspection of the reactor vessel.  Inspections of more than 2,000 bolts in the reactor’s removable insert liner identified issues with roughly 11% of the bolts that required further analysis.  Entergy replaced bolts as appropriate, and the unit returned to service in June 2016. In 2016, Entergy evaluated the scope and duration of Indian Point 3’s scheduled refueling outage planned for 2017, which began in March 2017. Based on the results of the 2016 evaluation and analysis, Entergy extended Indian Point 3’s planned 2017 outage duration. Entergy performed the same in-depth inspection of the reactor vessel at Indian Point 3 during Indian Point 3’s spring 2017 refueling and maintenance outage that it performed for Indian Point 2. Based on inspection data, Entergy replaced approximately the same number of bolts at Indian Point 3 that it replaced at Indian Point 2 before returning the plant to service in May 2017.

Grand Gulf

Grand Gulf began a maintenance outage on September 8, 2016 to replace a residual heat removal pump. Although the pump had been replaced, on September 27, 2016 management decided to keep the plant in an outage for additional training and other steps to support management’s operational goals. Grand Gulf returned to service on January 31, 2017.

Based on the plant’s performance indicators, in November 2016 the NRC placed Grand Gulf in the1, “regulatory response column,” or Column 2, of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Entergy is implementing a plan to restore Grand Gulf to“degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 3, and “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4. Plants in Column 1 including addressingare subject to normal NRC inspection activities. Plants in Column 2, Column 3, or Column 4 are subject to progressively increasing levels of inspection by the issues related to the three very low safety significance non-

NRC with, in general, progressively increasing levels of associated costs. Nuclear generating
35
27

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



plants owned and operated by Entergy’s Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses are currently in Column 1, except for Grand Gulf, which is in Column 2.
cited violations identified
In November 2020 the NRC placed Grand Gulf in the NRC’s reportColumn 2 based on the resultsincidence of three unplanned plant scrams during the second and third quarters of 2020. Two of the scram events related to new turbine control system components that failed, and a third related to a feedwater valve positioner that failed, all of which had been replaced in a refueling outage that ended in May 2020. The NRC plans to conduct a supplemental inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its October 2016 special inspection. Dependinginspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 2. As a consequence of two additional Grand Gulf scrams during the fourth quarter 2020, System Energy expects Grand Gulf to be placed into Column 3 based on the success of implementing that plan and the plant’splant performance indicators there is risk thatfor the four quarters ended December 31, 2020. This will involve an additional supplemental NRC could moveinspection of Grand Gulf into the “degraded cornerstone column,” orin accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 3, of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. 3.


Critical Accounting Estimates


The preparation of Entergy’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to apply appropriate accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that can have a significant effect on reported financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Management has identified the following accounting estimates as critical because they are based on assumptions and measurements that involve a high degree of uncertainty, and the potential for future changes in these assumptions and measurements could produce estimates that would have a material effect on the presentation of Entergy’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.


Nuclear Decommissioning Costs


Entergy subsidiaries own nuclear generation facilities in both the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities operating segments. Regulations require Entergy subsidiaries to decommission the nuclear power plants after each facility is taken out of service, and cash is deposited in trust funds during the facilities’ operating lives in order to provide for this obligation. Entergy conducts periodic decommissioning cost studies to estimate the costs that will be incurred to decommission the facilities. The following key assumptions have a significant effect on these estimates.

Timing - In projecting decommissioning costs, two assumptions must be made to estimate the timing of plant decommissioning. First, the date of the plant’s retirement must be estimated for those plants that do not have an announced shutdown date. The estimate may include assumptions regarding the possibility that the plant may have an operating life shorter than the operating license expiration, as well as assumptions regarding the probability that the plant’s license will be renewed for those plants that have not yet received operating license renewal.expiration. Second, an assumption must be made regarding whether all decommissioning activity will proceed immediately upon plant retirement, or whether the plant will be placed in SAFSTOR status. SAFSTOR is decommissioning a facility by placing it in a safe, stable condition that is maintained until it is subsequently decontaminated and dismantled to levels that permit license termination, normally within 60 years from permanent cessation of operations. A change of assumption regarding either the probability of license renewal, the period of continued operation, or the use of a SAFSTOR period, or whether Entergy will continue to hold the plant or the plant is held for sale can change the present value of the asset retirement obligation.
Cost Escalation Factors - Entergy’s current decommissioning cost studies include an assumption that decommissioning costs will escalate over present cost levels by factors ranging from approximately 2% to 3% annually. A 50-basis point change in this assumption could change the estimated present value of the decommissioning liabilities by approximately 3%6% to 18%. The timing assumption influences the significance of the effect of a change in the estimated inflation or cost escalation rate because the effect increases with the length of time assumed before decommissioning activity ends.
Spent Fuel Disposal - Federal law requires the DOE to provide for the permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel, and legislation has been passed by Congress to develop a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The DOE has not yet begun accepting spent nuclear fuel and is in non-compliance with federal law. The DOE
28

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
continues to delay meeting its obligation and Entergy’s nuclear plant owners are continuing to pursue damage claims against the DOE for its failure to provide timely spent fuel storage. Until a federal site is available, however, nuclear plant operators must provide for interim spent fuel storage on the nuclear plant site, which can require the construction and maintenance of dry cask storage sites or other facilities. The costs of developing and maintaining these facilities during the decommissioning period can have a significant effect (as much as an average of 20% to 30% of total estimated decommissioning costs). Entergy’s decommissioning studies include cost estimates for spent fuel storage. These estimates could change in the future, however, based on the expected timing of when the DOE begins to fulfill its obligation to receive and store spent nuclear fuel. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy’s spent nuclear fuel litigation.

36

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Technology and Regulation - Over the past several years, more practical experience with the actual decommissioning of nuclear facilities has been gained and that experience has been incorporated into Entergy’s current decommissioning cost estimates. Given the long duration of decommissioning projects, additional experience, including technological advancements in decommissioning, could occur, however,be gained and affect current cost estimates. In addition, if regulations regarding nuclear decommissioning were to change, this could significantly affect cost estimates.
Interest Rates - The estimated decommissioning costs that are the basis for the recorded decommissioning liability are discounted to present value using a credit-adjusted risk-free rate. When the decommissioning liability is revised, increases in cash flows are discounted using the current credit-adjusted risk-free rate. Decreases in estimated cash flows are discounted using the credit-adjusted risk-free rate used previously in estimating the decommissioning liability that is being revised. Therefore, to the extent that a revised cost study results in an increase in estimated cash flows, a change in interest rates from the time of the previous cost estimate will affect the calculation of the present value of the revised decommissioning liability.


Revisions of estimated decommissioning costs that decrease the liability also result in a decrease in the asset retirement cost asset. For the non-rate-regulated portions of Entergy’s business for which the plant’s value is impaired, these reductions will immediately reduce operating expenses in the period of the revision if the reduction of the liability exceeds the amount of the undepreciated plant asset at the date of the revision. Revisions of estimated decommissioning costs that increase the liability result in an increase in the asset retirement cost asset, which is then depreciated over the asset’s remaining economic life. For a plant in the non-rate-regulated portions of Entergy’s business for which the plant’s value is impaired, however, including a plant that is shutdown, or is nearing its shutdown date, the increase in the liability is likely to immediately increase operating expense in the period of the revision and not increase the asset retirement cost asset. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of impairment of long-lived assets and Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of asset retirement obligations.


Utility Regulatory Accounting


Entergy’s Utility operating companies and System Energy are subject to retail regulation by their respective state and local regulators and to wholesale regulation by the FERC. Because these regulatory agencies set the rates the Utility operating companies and System Energy are allowed to charge customers based on allowable costs, including a reasonable return on equity, the Utility operating companies and System Energy apply accounting standards that require the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation, including the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities. Regulatory assets represent incurred costs that have been deferred because they are probable of future recovery from customers through regulated rates. Regulatory liabilities represent the excess recovery of costs that have been deferred because it is probable such amounts will be returned to customers through future regulated rates. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of rate and regulatory matters, including details of Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities.


For each regulatory jurisdiction in which they conduct business, the Utility operating companies and System Energy assess whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This
29

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in applicable regulatory and political environments. If the assessments made by the Utility operating companies and System Energy are ultimately different than actual regulatory outcomes, it could materially affect the results of operations, financial position, and cash flows of Entergy or the Registrant Subsidiaries.

Unbilled Revenue

As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, Entergy records an estimate of the revenues earned for energy delivered since the latest customer billing. Each month the estimated unbilled revenue amounts are recorded as revenue and a receivable, and the prior month’s estimate is reversed. The difference between the estimate of the unbilled receivable at the beginning of the period and the end of the period is the amount of unbilled revenue recognized

37

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


during the period. The estimate recorded is primarily based upon an estimate of customer usage during the unbilled period and the billed price to customers in that month. Therefore, revenue recognized may be affected by the estimated price and usage at the beginning and end of each period, in addition to changes in certain components of the calculation.


Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments


Entergy has significant investments in long-lived assets in both of its operating segments, and Entergy evaluates these assets against the market economics and under the accounting rules for impairment when there are indications that an impairment may exist. This evaluation involves a significant degree of estimation and uncertainty. In the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, Entergy’s investments in merchant generation assets are subject to impairment if adverse market or regulatory conditions arise, particularly if it leads to a decision or an expectation that Entergy will operate or own a plant for a shorter period than previously expected; if there is a significant adverse change in the physical condition of a plant; or, if capital investment in a plant significantly exceeds previously-expected amounts; or, for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3, if their operating licenses are not renewed.amounts.


If an asset is considered held for use, and Entergy concludes that events and circumstances are present indicating that an impairment analysis should be performed under the accounting standards, the sum of the expected undiscounted future cash flows from the asset are compared to the asset’s carrying value. The carrying value of the asset includes any capitalized asset retirement cost associated with the decommissioning liability; therefore, changes in assumptions that affect the decommissioning liability can increase or decrease the carrying value of the asset subject to impairment. If the expected undiscounted future cash flows exceed the carrying value, no impairment is recorded. If the expected undiscounted future cash flows are less than the carrying value and the carrying value exceeds the fair value, Entergy is required to record an impairment charge to write the asset down to its fair value. If an asset is considered held for sale, an impairment is required to be recognized if the fair value (less costs to sell) of the asset is less than its carrying value.


The expected future cash flows are based on a number of key assumptions, including:


Future power and fuel prices - Electricity and gas prices can be very volatile. This volatility increases the imprecision inherent in the long-term forecasts of commodity prices that are a key determinant of estimated future cash flows.
Market value of generation assets - Valuing assets held for sale requires estimating the current market value of generation assets. While market transactions provide evidence for this valuation, these transactions are relatively infrequent, the market for such assets is volatile, and the value of individual assets is affected by factors unique to those assets.
Future operating costs - Entergy assumes relatively minor annual increases in operating costs. Technological or regulatory changes that have a significant effect on operations could cause a significant change in these assumptions.
Timing and the life of the asset - Entergy assumes an expected life of the asset. A change in the timing assumption, whether due to management decisions regarding operation of the plant, the regulatory process, or operational or other factors, could have a significant effect on the expected future cash flows and result in a significant effect on operations.


See Note 14 to the financial statements for a discussion of the impairments of the Palisades, Indian Point, FitzPatrick, and Pilgrim plants.

Entergy evaluates investment securities inimpairment conclusions related to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’Commodities nuclear decommissioning trust funds with unrealized losses at the end of each period to determine whether an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred.  The assessment of whether an investment in a debt security has suffered an other-than-temporary impairment is based on whether Entergy has the intent to sell or more likely than not will be required to sell the debt security before recovery of its amortized costs.  If Entergy does not expect to recover the entire amortized cost basis of the debt security, an other-than-temporary-impairment is considered to have occurred and it is measured by theplants.


38

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

present value of cash flows expected to be collected less the amortized cost basis (credit loss).  The assessment of whether an investment in an equity security has suffered an other than temporary impairment is based on a number of factors including, first, whether Entergy has the ability and intent to hold the investment to recover its value, the duration and severity of any losses, and, then, whether it is expected that the investment will recover its value within a reasonable period of time.  Entergy’s trusts are managed by third parties who operate in accordance with agreements that define investment guidelines and place restrictions on the purchases and sales of investments.  As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, unrealized losses on equity securities that are considered other-than-temporarily impaired are recorded in earnings for Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  Effective January 1, 2018 with the adoption of ASU 2016-01, unrealized losses and gains on investments in equity securities held by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear decommissioning trust funds will be recorded in earnings as they occur. See Note 16 to the financial statements for details on the decommissioning trust funds.

Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions


Management exercises significant judgment in evaluating the potential tax effects of Entergy’s operations, transactions, and other events. Entergy accounts for uncertain income tax positions using a recognition model under
30

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
a two-step approach with a more likely-than-not recognition threshold and a measurement approach based on the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50% likely of being realized upon settlement. Management evaluates each tax position based on the technical merits and facts and circumstances of the position, assuming the position will be examined by a taxing authority having full knowledge of all relevant information. Significant judgment is required to determine whether available information supports the assertion that the recognition threshold has been met. Additionally, measurement of unrecognized tax benefits to be recorded in the consolidated financial statements is based on the probability of different potential outcomes. Income tax expense and tax positions recorded could be significantly affected by events such as additional transactions contemplated or consummated by Entergy as well as audits by taxing authorities of the tax positions taken in transactions. Management believes that the financial statement tax balances are accounted for and adjusted appropriately each quarter as necessary in accordance with applicable authoritative guidance; however, the ultimate outcome of tax matters could result in favorable or unfavorable effects on the consolidated financial statements. Entergy’s income taxes, including unrecognized tax benefits, open audits, and other significant tax matters are discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements.


Included in the IRS examination of Entergy’s 2015 tax returns is the tax effect of the October 2015 combination of two Entergy utility companies, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana maintained a carryover tax basis in the assets received and the tax consequences provided for an increase in tax basis as well. This resulted in recognition in 2015 of a $334 million permanent difference and income tax benefit, net of the uncertain tax position recorded on the transaction. As discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements, the IRS completed its examination of the 2014 and 2015 tax years and issued its 2014-2015 Revenue Agent Report in November 2020. Entergy Louisiana reversed the provision for uncertain tax positions with respect to the business combination.See MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Income Tax Legislation” aboveadditional discussion of the 2014 and 2015 IRS audit in Note 3 to the financial statements.

In addition, as discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements, in 2015, System Energy and Entergy Louisiana adopted a new method of accounting for income tax return purposes in which nuclear decommissioning liabilities are treated as production costs of electricity includable in cost of goods sold. The new method resulted in a reduction of taxable income of $1.2 billion for System Energy and $2.2 billion for Entergy Louisiana in 2015. In the third quarter 2020 the IRS issued Notices of Proposed Adjustment concerning this uncertain tax position allowing System Energy to include $102 million of its decommissioning liability in cost of goods sold and Entergy Louisiana to include $221 million of its decommissioning liability in cost of goods sold. The Notices of Proposed Adjustment will not be appealed.

As a result of System Energy being allowed to include part of its decommissioning liability in cost of goods sold, System Energy and Entergy recorded a deferred tax liability of $26 million. System Energy also recorded federal and state taxes payable of $402 million; on a consolidated basis, however, Entergy utilized tax loss carryovers to offset the federal taxable income adjustment and accordingly did not record federal taxes payable as a result of the outcome of this uncertain tax position.

As a result of Entergy Louisiana being allowed to include part of its decommissioning liability in cost of goods sold, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy recorded a deferred tax liability of $60 million. Both Entergy Louisiana and Entergy utilized tax loss carryovers to offset the taxable income adjustment and accordingly did not record taxes payable as a result of the outcome of this uncertain tax position.

The partial disallowance of the uncertain tax position to include the decommissioning liability in cost of goods sold resulted in a $1.5 billion decrease in the balance of unrecognized tax benefits related to federal and state taxes for Entergy. Additionally, both System Energy and Entergy Louisiana recorded a reduction to their balances of unrecognized tax benefits for federal and state taxes of $461 million and $1.1 billion, respectively.

The tax treatment of Entergy Louisiana’s accrued regulatory liabilities associated with the Vidalia purchased power agreement and business combination guaranteed customer credits, which are discussed in Note 2
31

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

to the financial statements, has been resolved in a manner that results in a $190 million increase to previously reported taxable income. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy utilized tax loss carryovers to offset the taxable income adjustment, however, which allowed both Entergy Louisiana and Entergy to reduce their balances of federal and state unrecognized tax benefits by $74 million.

See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal income tax legislation enacted in December 2017.


Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits


Entergy sponsors qualified, defined benefit pension plans that cover substantially all employees, including cash balance plans and final average pay plans. Additionally, Entergy currently provides other postretirement health care and life insurance benefits for substantially all full-time employees whose most recent date of hire or rehire is before July 1, 2014 and who reach retirement age and meet certain eligibility requirements while still working for Entergy.


Entergy’s reported costs of providing these benefits, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are affected by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms. Because of the complexity of these calculations, the long-term nature of these obligations, and the importance of the assumptions utilized, Entergy’s estimate of these costs is a critical accounting estimate for the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities segments.


39

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Assumptions


Key actuarial assumptions utilized in determining qualified pension and other postretirement health care and life insurance costs include discount rates, projected healthcare cost rates, expected long-term rate of return on plan assets, rate of increase in future compensation levels, retirement rates, expected timing and form of payments, and mortality rates.


Annually, Entergy reviews and, when necessary, adjusts the assumptions for the pension and other postretirement plans. Every three-to-five years, a formal actuarial assumption experience study that compares assumptions to the actual experience of the pension and other postretirement health care and life insurance plans is conducted. The falling interest rate environment over the past few years and volatility in the financial equity markets have affected Entergy’s funding and reported costs for these benefits.


Discount rates


In selecting an assumed discount rate to calculate benefit obligations, Entergy uses a yield curve based on high-quality corporate debt. Before 2016debt with cash flows matching the discount rates used to estimateexpected plan benefit payments. In estimating the service cost and interest cost components of net periodic benefit costs werecost, Entergy discounts the same as the weighted-average discount rate used to measure the benefit obligation at the beginning of the year. In 2016, Entergy refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components. Under the refined approach, instead of using the weighted-average benefit obligation discount rate at the beginning of the year, the 2016 service and interest costs’ expected cash flows were discounted by the applicable spot rates. The refinement had the effect of lowering 2016 qualified pension costs by $61 million and 2016 other postretirement health care and life insurance benefit costs by $15 million.


Projected health care cost trend rates


Entergy’s health care cost trend is affected by both medical cost inflation, and with respect to capped costs under the plan, the effects of general inflation. Entergy reviews actual recent cost trends and projected future trends in establishing its health care cost trend rates.

Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets


In determining its expected long-term rate of return on plan assets used in the calculation of benefit plan costs, Entergy reviews past performance, current and expected future asset allocations, and capital market
32

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
assumptions of its investment consultant and some of its investment managers. Entergy conducts periodic asset/liability studies in order to set its target asset allocations.
Since 2003, Entergy has targeted an asset allocation for its qualified pension plan assets of roughly 65% equity securities and 35% fixed-income securities. 
In 2017, Entergy confirmed the 2011its liability-driven investment strategy for its pension assets, which recommended that the target asset allocation adjust dynamically over time, based on the funded status of the plan, from its current allocation to an ultimate allocation. In 2017, Entergy adopted a new ultimate allocation for pension assets of 35% equity securities and 65% fixed income securities. The ultimate asset allocation is expected to be attained when the plan is 105%100% funded. The target pension asset allocation for 2020 was 58% equity and 42% fixed income securities.

In 2016, the target allocations for both Entergy’s non-taxable other postretirement assets and its taxable other postretirement assets were 65% equity securities and 35% fixed-income securities. During the first quarter of 2017, Entergy implemented a new asset allocation strategy for its non-taxable and taxable other postretirement assets, based on the funded status of each sub-account within each trust, which resulted in an overall shift to more fixed income in the non-taxable trusts and no material changes in asset allocation to the taxable trust. The new strategy no longer focuses on targeting an overall asset allocation for each trust, but rather a target asset allocation for each sub-account within each trust.trust that adjusts dynamically based on the funded status. The 2020 weighted average target postretirement asset allocation is 44% equity and 56% fixed income securities. See Note 11 to the financial statements for discussion of the current asset allocations for Entergy’s pension and other postretirement assets.



40

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Retirement and mortality rates

In October 2017 the Internal Revenue Service issued updated mortality regulations for single employer plans for determining cash contribution requirements. The regulations, based on the Society of Actuaries’ 2014 mortality table, are effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2018.

Costs and Sensitivities


The estimated 20182021 and actual 20172020 qualified pension and other postretirement costs and related underlying assumptions and sensitivities are shown below:

CostsEstimated 20212020
(In millions)
Qualified pension cost$360.1$373.8 (a)
Other postretirement income($25.6)($17.2)
Assumptions20212020
Discount rates
Qualified pension
Service cost2.81%3.42%
Interest cost2.08%2.99%
Other postretirement
Service cost2.98%3.27%
Interest cost1.86%2.41%
Expected long-term rates of return
Qualified pension assets6.75%7.00%
Other postretirement - non-taxable assets6.00% - 6.75%6.25% - 7.00%
Other postretirement - taxable assets - after tax rate5.00%5.25%
Weighted-average rate of increase in future compensation3.98% - 4.40%3.98% - 4.40%
Assumed health care cost trend rates
Pre-65 retirees5.87%6.13%
Post-65 retirees6.31%6.25%
Ultimate rate4.75%4.75%
Year ultimate rate is reached and beyond
Pre-65 retirees20302027
Post-65 retirees20282027
33

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Costs Estimated 2018 2017
  (In Millions)
Qualified pension cost $254.8 $214.2
Other postretirement cost $13.1 $25.6
     
Assumptions 2018 2017
Discount rates    
Qualified pension    
Service cost 3.89% 4.75%
Interest cost 3.44% 3.73%
Other postretirement    
Service cost 3.88% 4.60%
Interest cost 3.33% 3.61%
     
Expected long-term rates of return    
Qualified pension assets 7.50% 7.50%
Other postretirement - non-taxable assets 6.50% - 7.50% 6.50% - 6.90%
Other postretirement - taxable assets - after tax rate 5.50% 5.75%
     
Weighted-average rate of future compensation 3.98% 3.98%
     
Assumed health care cost trend rates    
Pre-65 retirees 6.95% 6.55%
Post-65 retirees 7.25% 7.25%
Ultimate rate 4.75% 4.75%
Year ultimate rate is reached and beyond 2027 2026


(a)    In 2020 qualified pension cost included settlement costs of $36.9 million.

Actual asset returns have an effect on Entergy’s qualified pension and other postretirement costs. In 2017,2020, Entergy’s actual average annual return on qualified pension assets was approximately 16% and for other postretirement assets was approximately 14%12%, as compared with the 20172020 expected long-term rates of return discussed above.


41

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension cost and qualified pension projected benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in millions):
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Qualified Pension CostImpact on 2020 Qualified Projected Benefit Obligation
 Increase/(Decrease)
Discount rate(0.25%)$25$260
Rate of return on plan assets(0.25%)$16$—
Rate of increase in compensation0.25%$9$46
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Qualified Pension Cost Impact on 2017 Qualified Projected Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease)
Discount rate (0.25%) $23 $250
Rate of return on plan assets (0.25%) $15 $—
Rate of increase in compensation 0.25% $7 $34


The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in millions):
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Postretirement Benefit CostImpact on 2020 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
 Increase/(Decrease)
Discount rate(0.25%)$2$39
Health care cost trend0.25%$2$26
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Postretirement Benefit Cost Impact on 2017 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease)
Discount rate (0.25%) $3 $50
Health care cost trend 0.25% $5 $39


Each fluctuation above assumes that the other components of the calculation are held constant.


Accounting Mechanisms


In accordance with pension accounting standards, Entergy utilizes a number of accounting mechanisms that reduce the volatility of reported pension costs. Differences between actuarial assumptions and actual plan results are deferred and are amortized into expense only when the accumulated differences exceed 10% of the greater of the projected benefit obligation or the market-related value of plan assets. If necessary, the excess is amortized over the average remaining service period of active employees.employees or the average remaining life expectancy of plan participants if almost all are inactive. Additionally, accounting standards allow for the deferral of prior service costs/credits arising from plan amendments that attribute an increase or decrease in benefits to employee service in prior periods. Prior service costs/credits are then amortized into expense over the average future working life of active employees. Certain decisions, including workforce reductions, plan amendments, and plant shutdowns may significantly reduce the expense amortization period and result in immediate recognition of certain previously-deferred costs and gains/losses in the form of curtailment gains or losses. Similarly, payments made to settle benefit obligations, including lump sum benefit payments, can also result in accelerated recognition in the form of settlement losses or gains.


Entergy calculates the expected return on pension and other postretirement benefit plan assets by multiplying the long-term expected rate of return on assets by the market-related value (MRV) of plan assets. In general, Entergy determines the MRV of its pension plan assets by calculating a value that uses a 20-quarter phase-in of the difference between actual and expected returns.  Forreturns and for its other postretirement benefit plan assets Entergy uses fair value when determining MRV.value.


34

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
Accounting standards require an employer to recognize in its balance sheet the funded status of its benefit plans. See Note 11 to the financial statements for a further discussion of Entergy’s funded status.


FundingEmployer Contributions


 Entergy’sEntergy contributed $316.3 million to its qualified pension fundingplans in 2017 was $410 million.2020. Entergy estimates pension contributions will be approximately $352.1$356 million in 2018;2021; although the 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021.


42

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Minimum required funding calculations as determined under Pension Protection Act guidance are performed annually as of January 1 of each year and are based on measurements of the assets and funding liabilities as measured at that date. Any excess of the funding liability over the calculated fair market value of assets results in a funding shortfall that, under the Pension Protection Act, must be funded over a seven-year rolling period. The Pension Protection Act also imposes certain plan limitations if the funded percentage, which is based on calculated fair market values of assets divided by funding liabilities, does not meet certain thresholds. For funding purposes, asset gains and losses are smoothed in to the calculated fair market value of assets and theassets. The funding liability is based upon a weighted average 24-month corporate bond rate published by the U.S. Treasury; therefore, periodicTreasury which is generally subject to a corridor of the 25-year average of prior segment rates. Periodic changes in asset returns and interest rates can affect funding shortfalls and future cash contributions.

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) became federal law in July 2012.  Under the law, the segment rates used to calculate funding liabilities must be within a corridor of the 25-year average of prior segment rates.  The interest rate corridor applies to the determination of minimum funding requirements and benefit restrictions.  These pension funding stabilization provisions provide for a near-term reduction in minimum funding requirements for single employer defined benefit plans in response to the historically low interest rates that existed when the law was enacted.  The law did not reduce contribution requirements over the long term. The interest rate stabilization periods of MAP-21 were extended by the Highway and Transportation Funding Act in 2014 and the Bipartisan Budget Act in 2015.


Entergy contributed $44.3$48.2 million to its postretirement plans in 20172020 and plans to contribute $52.3$39.9 million in 2018.2021.

Federal Healthcare Legislation

In 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as amended, imposed a 40% excise tax on per capita medical benefit costs that exceed certain thresholds. In January 2018 the effective date of the excise tax was delayed and is currently expected to take effect in 2022.  Entergy will continue to monitor developments to determine the possible effect on Entergy.


Other Contingencies


As a company with multi-state utility operations, Entergy is subject to a number of federal and state laws and regulations and other factors and conditions in the areas in which it operates, which potentially subjectsubjects it to environmental, litigation, and other risks. Entergy periodically evaluates its exposure for such risks and records a reserveprovision for those matters which are considered probable and estimable in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.


Environmental


Entergy must comply with environmental laws and regulations applicable to air emissions, water discharges, solid andwaste (including coal combustion residuals), hazardous waste, toxic substances, protected species, and other environmental matters. Under these various laws and regulations, Entergy could incur substantial costs to comply or address any impacts to the environment. Entergy conducts studies to determine the extent of any required remediation and has recorded liabilities based upon its evaluation of the likelihood of loss and expected dollar amount for each issue. Additional sites or issues could be identified which require environmental remediation or corrective action for which Entergy could be liable. The amounts of environmental liabilities recorded can be significantly affected by the following external events or conditions.


Changes to existing federal, state, or local regulation by governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.

43

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


The identification of additional impacts, sites, issues, or the filing of other complaints in which Entergy may be asserted to be a potentially responsible party.
The resolution or progression of existing matters through the court system or resolution by the EPA or relevant state or local authority.


35

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Litigation


Entergy is regularly named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits involving employment, customers, and injuries and damages issues, among other matters. Entergy periodically reviews the cases in which it has been named as defendant and assesses the likelihood of loss in each case as probable, reasonably possible, or remote and records liabilities for cases that have a probable likelihood of loss and the loss can be estimated. Given the environment in which Entergy operates, and the unpredictable nature of many of the cases in which Entergy is named as a defendant, the ultimate outcome of the litigation to which Entergy is exposed has the potential to materially affect the results of operations, financial position, and cash flows of Entergy or the Registrant Subsidiaries.


New Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 1 to the financial statements for discussion of new accounting pronouncements.





36

Table of Contents
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
REPORT OF MANAGEMENT


Management of Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries has prepared and is responsible for the financial statements and related financial information included in this document.  To meet this responsibility, management establishes and maintains a system of internal controls over financial reporting designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. This system includes communication through written policies and procedures, an employee Code of Entegrity, and an organizational structure that provides for appropriate division of responsibility and training of personnel. This system is also tested by a comprehensive internal audit program.


Entergy management assesses the design and effectiveness of Entergy’s internal control over financial reporting on an annual basis. In making this assessment, management uses the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control - Integrated Framework. The 2013 COSO Framework was utilized for management’s assessment. Management acknowledges, however, that all internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations and can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.


Entergy Corporation’s independent registered public accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP, has issued an attestation report on the effectiveness of Entergy Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017.2020.


In addition, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, composed solely of independent Directors, meets with the independent auditors, internal auditors, management, and internal accountants periodically to discuss internal controls, and auditing and financial reporting matters. The Audit Committee appoints the independent auditors annually, seeks shareholder ratification of the appointment, and reviews with the independent auditors the scope and results of the audit effort. The Audit Committee also meets periodically with the independent auditors and the chief internal auditor without management present, providing free access to the Audit Committee.


Based on management’s assessment of internal controls using the 2013 COSO criteria, management believes that Entergy and each of the Registrant Subsidiaries maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017.2020. Management further believes that this assessment, combined with the policies and procedures noted above, provides reasonable assurance that Entergy’s and each of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ financial statements are fairly and accurately presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.


LEO P. DENAULT

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Corporation
ANDREW S. MARSH

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.,LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,LLC, Entergy New Orleans, LLC, Entergy Texas, Inc., and System Energy Resources, Inc.
RICHARD C. RILEY
Chairman 
LAURA R. LANDREAUX
Chair
of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
LLC
 
PHILLIP R. MAY, JR.

Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Louisiana, LLC


HALEY R. FISACKERLY

Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
LLC
CHARLES L. RICE, JR.
 
DAVID D. ELLIS
Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy New Orleans, LLC
 
SALLIE T. RAINER

Chair of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Texas, Inc.
 
RODERICK K. WEST

Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer of System Energy Resources, Inc.


37
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON










 2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
 (In Thousands, Except Percentages and Per Share Amounts)
          
Operating revenues
$11,074,481


$10,845,645
 
$11,513,251
 
$12,494,921


$11,390,947
Net income (loss)
$425,353


($564,503) 
($156,734) 
$960,257


$730,572
Earnings (loss) per share: 
     

 
Basic
$2.29


($3.26) 
($0.99) 
$5.24


$3.99
Diluted
$2.28


($3.26) 
($0.99) 
$5.22


$3.99
Dividends declared per share
$3.50


$3.42
 
$3.34
 
$3.32


$3.32
Return on common equity5.12%
(6.73%) (1.83)% 9.58%
7.56%
Book value per share, year-end
$44.28


$45.12
 
$51.89
 
$55.83


$54.00
Total assets
$46,707,149


$45,904,434
 
$44,647,681
 
$46,414,455


$43,290,290
Long-term obligations (a)
$14,535,077


$14,695,422
 
$13,456,742
 
$12,627,180


$12,265,971















(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt), non-current capital lease obligations, and subsidiary preferred stock without sinking fund that is not presented as equity on the balance sheet.










 2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
 (Dollars In Millions)
          
Utility electric operating revenues: 

 

 

 

 
Residential
$3,355


$3,288


$3,518


$3,555


$3,396
Commercial2,480

2,362

2,516

2,553

2,415
Industrial2,584

2,327

2,462

2,623

2,405
Governmental231

217

223

227

218
Total retail8,650

8,194

8,719

8,958

8,434
Sales for resale253

236

249

330

210
Other376

437

341

304

298
Total
$9,279


$8,867


$9,309


$9,592


$8,942
          
Utility billed electric energy sales (GWh):




 

 

 
Residential33,834

35,112

36,068

35,932

35,169
Commercial28,745

29,197

29,348

28,827

28,547
Industrial47,769

45,739

44,382

43,723

41,653
Governmental2,511

2,547

2,514

2,428

2,412
Total retail112,859

112,595

112,312

110,910

107,781
Sales for resale11,550

11,054

9,274

9,462

3,020
Total124,409

123,649

121,586

120,372

110,801
          
Entergy Wholesale Commodities: 

 

 

 

 
Operating revenues
$1,657
 
$1,850
 
$2,062
 
$2,719
 
$2,313
Billed electric energy sales (GWh)30,501
 35,881
 39,745
 44,424
 45,127

Table of Contents



ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
 20202019201820172016
 (In Thousands, Except Percentages and Per Share Amounts)
Operating revenues$10,113,636 $10,878,673 $11,009,452 $11,074,481 $10,845,645 
Net income (loss)$1,406,653 $1,258,244 $862,555 $425,353 ($564,503)
Earnings (loss) per share:  
Basic$6.94 $6.36 $4.68 $2.29 ($3.26)
Diluted$6.90 $6.30 $4.63 $2.28 ($3.26)
Dividends declared per share$3.74 $3.66 $3.58 $3.50 $3.42 
Return on common equity13.13 %13.02 %10.08 %5.12 %(6.73 %)
Book value per share, year-end$54.56 $51.34 $46.78 $44.28 $45.12 
Total assets$58,239,212 $51,723,912 $48,275,066 $46,707,149 $45,904,434 
Long-term obligations (a)$21,477,974 $17,351,449 $15,758,083 $14,535,077 $14,695,422 

(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt), non-current finance lease obligations, and subsidiary preferred stock without sinking fund that is not presented as equity on the balance sheet.
 20202019201820172016
 (Dollars In Millions)
Utility electric operating revenues:     
Residential$3,550 $3,532 $3,566 $3,355 $3,288 
Commercial2,293 2,476 2,426 2,480 2,362 
Industrial2,331 2,541 2,499 2,584 2,327 
Governmental212 228 226 231 217 
Total billed retail8,386 8,777 8,717 8,650 8,194 
Sales for resale296 286 300 253 236 
Other365 367 367 376 437 
Total$9,047 $9,430 $9,384 $9,279 $8,867 
Utility billed electric energy sales (GWh):   
Residential35,173 36,094 37,107 33,834 35,112 
Commercial26,466 28,755 29,426 28,745 29,197 
Industrial47,117 48,483 48,384 47,769 45,739 
Governmental2,414 2,579 2,581 2,511 2,547 
Total retail111,170 115,911 117,498 112,859 112,595 
Sales for resale13,658 13,210 11,715 11,550 11,054 
Total124,828 129,121 129,213 124,409 123,649 
Entergy Wholesale Commodities:     
Operating revenues$943 $1,295 $1,469 $1,657 $1,850 
Billed electric energy sales (GWh)20,581 28,088 29,875 30,501 35,881 



38

Table of Contents
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To the shareholdersShareholders and Board of Directors of
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries


Opinion on the Financial Statements


We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Corporation”) as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, the related consolidated statements of operations,income, comprehensive income, (loss), cash flows, and changes in equity for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, and the related notes (collectively, referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Corporation as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017,2020, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 26, 2018,2021, expressed an unqualified opinion on the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting.


Basis for Opinion


These financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Corporation’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Corporation in accordance with the U.S.US federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.


We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



Critical Audit Matters

The critical audit matters communicated below are matters arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that were communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that (1) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matters below, providing separate opinions on the critical audit matters or on the accounts or disclosures to which they relate.

Rate and Regulatory Matters —Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries—Refer to Note 2 to the financial statements

Critical Audit Matter Description

The Corporation is subject to rate regulation by the Arkansas Public Service Commission, Louisiana Public Service Commission, Mississippi Public Service Commission, City Council of New Orleans, Louisiana, and Public Utility Commission of Texas (the “Commissions”), which have jurisdiction with respect to the rates of electric companies in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and the City of New Orleans, and to wholesale rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Management has determined it meets the requirements under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America to prepare its financial statements applying
39

Table of Contents
the specialized rules to account for the effects of cost-based rate regulation. Accounting for the economics of rate regulation impacts multiple financial statement line items and disclosures, such as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets and liabilities; income taxes; operating revenues; operation and maintenance expense; and depreciation and amortization expense.

The Corporation’s rates are subject to regulatory rate-setting processes and annual earnings oversight. Because the Commissions and the FERC set the rates, the Corporation is allowed to charge customers based on allowable costs, including a reasonable return on equity, and the Corporation applies accounting standards that require the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation, including the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities. The Corporation assesses whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in applicable regulatory and political environments. While the Corporation has indicated it expects to recover costs from customers through regulated rates, there is a risk that the Commissions and the FERC will not approve: (1) full recovery of the costs of providing utility service or (2) full recovery of amounts invested in the utility business and a reasonable return on that investment.

We identified the impact of rate regulation as a critical audit matter due to the significant judgments made by management to support its assertions about impacted account balances and disclosures and the high degree of subjectivity involved in assessing the impact of future regulatory orders on the financial statements. Management judgments include assessing the (1) likelihood of recovery in future rates of incurred costs, (2) likelihood of refunds to customers, and (3) ongoing complaints filed with the FERC against System Energy. Auditing management’s judgments regarding the outcome of future decisions by the Commissions and the FERC involved especially subjective judgment and specialized knowledge of accounting for rate regulation and the rate-setting process.

How the Critical Audit Matter Was Addressed in the Audit

Our audit procedures related to the uncertainty of future decisions by the Commissions and the FERC included the following, among others:

We tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the evaluation of the likelihood of (1) the recovery in future rates of costs incurred as property, plant, and equipment and deferred as regulatory assets; and (2) a refund or a future reduction in rates that should be reported as regulatory liabilities. We also tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the initial recognition of amounts as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets or liabilities; and the monitoring and evaluation of regulatory developments that may affect the likelihood of recovering costs in future rates or of a future reduction in rates.

We evaluated the Corporation’s disclosures related to the impacts of rate regulation, including the balances recorded and regulatory developments.

We read relevant regulatory orders issued by the Commissions and the FERC for the Corporation and other public utilities, regulatory statutes, interpretations, procedural memorandums, filings made by intervenors, and other publicly available information to assess the likelihood of recovery in future rates or of a future reduction in rates based on precedents of the Commissions’ and the FERC’s treatment of similar costs under similar circumstances. We evaluated the external information and compared to management’s recorded regulatory asset and liability balances for completeness.

For regulatory matters in process, we inspected the Corporation’s filings with the Commissions and the FERC, including the annual formula rate plan filings, base rate case filings, and open complaints filed with the FERC against System Energy, and considered the filings with the Commissions and the FERC by intervenors that may impact the Corporation’s future rates, for any evidence that might contradict management’s assertions.

We obtained an analysis from management and support from the Corporation’s internal and external legal counsel, as appropriate, regarding probability of recovery for regulatory assets or refund or future reduction in rates for regulatory liabilities not yet addressed in a regulatory order, including the complaints filed with the FERC against System Energy, to assess management’s assertion that amounts are probable of recovery or a future reduction in rates.

40

Table of Contents
Uncertain Tax Positions—Entergy Wholesale Commodities—Refer to Note 3 to the financial statements

Critical Audit Matter Description

The Corporation accounts for uncertain income tax positions under a two-step approach with a more likely-than-not recognition threshold and a measurement approach based on the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than fifty percent likely of being realized upon settlement. The Corporation has uncertain tax positions which require management to make significant judgments and assumptions to determine whether available information supports the assertion that the recognition threshold is met, particularly related to the technical merits and facts and circumstances of each position, as well as the probability of different potential outcomes. These uncertain tax positions could be significantly affected by events such as additional transactions contemplated or consummated by the Corporation as well as audits by taxing authorities of the tax positions. The net unrecognized tax benefit of $979 million at December 31, 2020, includes uncertain tax positions related to Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

Given the subjectivity of estimating these uncertain tax positions, auditing the uncertain tax positions involved especially subjective judgment.

How the Critical Audit Matter Was Addressed in the Audit

Our audit procedures related to the uncertain tax positions included the following, among others:

We tested the effectiveness of controls related to uncertain tax positions, including those over the recognition and measurement of the income tax benefits.

We evaluated the Corporation’s disclosures, and the balances recorded, related to uncertain tax positions.

We evaluated the methods and assumptions used by management to estimate the uncertain tax positions by testing the underlying data that served as the basis for the uncertain tax position.

With the assistance of our income tax specialists, we tested the technical merits of the uncertain tax positions and management’s key estimates and judgments made by:

Assessing the technical merits of the uncertain tax positions by comparing to similar cases filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
Evaluating the reasonableness and consistency of the probabilities applied to the uncertain tax position by comparing to probabilities used on similar uncertain tax positions.
Considering the impact of changes or settlements in the tax environment on management’s methods and assumptions used to estimate the uncertain tax positions.

Nuclear Decommissioning Costs—Entergy Wholesale Commodities—Refer to Note 9 to the financial statements

Critical Audit Matter Description

The Corporation owns nuclear generation facilities in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities operating segment where regulation requires the Corporation to decommission its nuclear power plants after each facility is taken out of service. The Corporation periodically conducts decommissioning cost studies, which requires management to make significant judgments and assumptions, specifically related to future dismantlement, site restoration, spent fuel management, and license termination costs. The liability for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear decommissioning was $2.6 billion at December 31, 2020.

Auditing management’s judgments regarding the nuclear decommissioning costs, including estimates for future dismantlement, site restoration, spent fuel management, and license termination costs, involved especially subjective judgment in evaluating the appropriateness of the estimates and assumptions.

41

Table of Contents
How the Critical Audit Matter Was Addressed in the Audit

Our audit procedures related to the underlying costs for nuclear decommissioning included the following, among others:

We tested the effectiveness of the control over nuclear decommissioning where management evaluates whether estimates and assumptions need to be updated for each of the nuclear power plants.

We evaluated the Corporation’s disclosures related to the estimated nuclear decommissioning costs, including the balances recorded.

We evaluated management’s ability to accurately estimate the costs for nuclear decommissioning by comparing the cost estimates to actual nuclear decommissioning costs of similar asset retirement obligations at the Corporation.

With the assistance of our environmental specialists, we completed a search of environmental regulations to evaluate any regulatory changes that may affect the nuclear decommissioning cost estimates.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 20182021



We have served as the Corporation’s auditor since 2001.






42
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  
  (In Thousands, Except Share Data)
OPERATING REVENUES      
Electric 
$9,278,895
 
$8,866,659
 
$9,308,678
Natural gas 138,856
 129,348
 142,746
Competitive businesses 1,656,730
 1,849,638
 2,061,827
TOTAL 11,074,481
 10,845,645
 11,513,251
       
OPERATING EXPENSES  
  
  
Operation and Maintenance:  
  
  
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale 1,991,589
 1,809,200
 2,452,171
Purchased power 1,427,950
 1,220,527
 1,390,805
Nuclear refueling outage expenses 168,151
 208,678
 251,316
Other operation and maintenance 3,423,689
 3,296,711
 3,354,981
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges 538,372
 2,835,637
 2,104,906
Decommissioning 405,685
 327,425
 280,272
Taxes other than income taxes 617,556
 592,502
 619,422
Depreciation and amortization 1,389,978
 1,347,187
 1,337,276
Other regulatory charges (credits) - net (131,901) 94,243
 175,304
TOTAL 9,831,069
 11,732,110
 11,966,453
       
Gain on sale of asset 16,270
 
 154,037
       
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) 1,259,682
 (886,465) (299,165)
       
OTHER INCOME  
  
  
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 95,088
 67,563
 51,908
Interest and investment income 288,197
 145,127
 187,062
Miscellaneous - net (12,701) (41,617) (95,997)
TOTAL 370,584
 171,073
 142,973
       
INTEREST EXPENSE  
  
  
Interest expense 707,212
 700,545
 670,096
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction (44,869) (34,175) (26,627)
TOTAL 662,343
 666,370
 643,469
       
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES 967,923
 (1,381,762) (799,661)
       
Income taxes 542,570
 (817,259) (642,927)
       
CONSOLIDATED NET INCOME (LOSS) 425,353
 (564,503) (156,734)
       
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries 13,741
 19,115
 19,828
       
NET INCOME (LOSS) ATTRIBUTABLE TO ENTERGY CORPORATION 
$411,612
 
($583,618) 
($176,562)
       
Earnings (loss) per average common share:  
  
  
Basic 
$2.29
 
($3.26) 
($0.99)
Diluted 
$2.28
 
($3.26) 
($0.99)
       
Basic average number of common shares outstanding 179,671,797
 178,885,660
 179,176,356
Diluted average number of common shares outstanding 180,535,893
 178,885,660
 179,176,356
       
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  

Table of Contents


ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 
  (In Thousands, Except Share Data)
OPERATING REVENUES   
Electric$9,046,643 $9,429,978 $9,384,111 
Natural gas124,008 153,954 156,436 
Competitive businesses942,985 1,294,741 1,468,905 
TOTAL10,113,636 10,878,673 11,009,452 
OPERATING EXPENSES   
Operation and Maintenance:   
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale1,564,371 2,029,638 2,147,793 
Purchased power904,268 1,192,860 1,658,799 
Nuclear refueling outage expenses184,157 204,927 153,826 
Other operation and maintenance3,002,626 3,272,381 3,346,397 
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges26,623 290,027 532,321 
Decommissioning381,861 400,802 388,508 
Taxes other than income taxes652,840 643,745 641,952 
Depreciation and amortization1,613,086 1,480,016 1,369,442 
Other regulatory charges (credits) - net14,609 (26,220)301,049 
TOTAL8,344,441 9,488,176 10,540,087 
OPERATING INCOME1,769,195 1,390,497 469,365 
OTHER INCOME   
Allowance for equity funds used during construction119,430 144,974 129,602 
Interest and investment income392,818 547,912 63,864 
Miscellaneous - net(210,633)(252,539)(129,754)
TOTAL301,615 440,347 63,712 
INTEREST EXPENSE   
Interest expense837,981 807,382 768,322 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction(52,318)(64,957)(60,974)
TOTAL785,663 742,425 707,348 
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES1,285,147 1,088,419 (174,271)
Income taxes(121,506)(169,825)(1,036,826)
CONSOLIDATED NET INCOME1,406,653 1,258,244 862,555 
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries18,319 17,018 13,894 
NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO ENTERGY CORPORATION$1,388,334 $1,241,226 $848,661 
Earnings per average common share:   
Basic$6.94 $6.36 $4.68 
Diluted$6.90 $6.30 $4.63 
Basic average number of common shares outstanding200,106,945 195,195,858 181,409,597 
Diluted average number of common shares outstanding201,102,220 196,999,284 183,378,513 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   


43

Table of Contents
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
  
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
      
Net Income (Loss)
$425,353
 
($564,503) 
($156,734)
      
Other comprehensive income (loss) 
  
  
Cash flow hedges net unrealized gain (loss) 
  
  
(net of tax expense (benefit) of ($22,570), ($55,298), and $3,752)(41,470) (101,977) 7,852
Pension and other postretirement liabilities 
  
  
(net of tax expense (benefit) of ($4,057), ($3,952), and $61,576)(61,653) (2,842) 103,185
Net unrealized investment gains (losses) 
  
  
(net of tax expense (benefit) of $80,069, $57,277, and ($45,904))115,311
 62,177
 (59,138)
Foreign currency translation 
  
  
(net of tax benefit of $403, $689, and $345)(748) (1,280) (641)
Other comprehensive income (loss)11,440
 (43,922) 51,258
      
Comprehensive Income (Loss)436,793
 (608,425) (105,476)
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries13,741
 19,115
 19,828
Comprehensive Income (Loss) Attributable to Entergy Corporation
$423,052
 
($627,540) 
($125,304)
      
See Notes to Financial Statements. 
  
  


























(Page left blank intentionally)
44
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
       
OPERATING ACTIVITIES      
Consolidated net income (loss) 
$425,353
 
($564,503) 
($156,734)
Adjustments to reconcile consolidated net income (loss) to net cash flow provided by operating activities:      
Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning, including nuclear fuel amortization 2,078,578
 2,123,291
 2,117,236
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued 529,053
 (836,257) (820,350)
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges 357,251
 2,835,637
 2,104,906
Gain on sale of asset (16,270) 
 (154,037)
Changes in working capital:  
  
  
Receivables (97,637) (96,975) 38,152
Fuel inventory (3,043) 38,210
 (12,376)
Accounts payable 101,802
 174,421
 (135,211)
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued 33,853
 (28,963) 81,969
Interest accrued 742
 (7,335) (11,445)
Deferred fuel costs 56,290
 (241,896) 298,725
Other working capital accounts (4,331) 31,197
 (113,701)
Changes in provisions for estimated losses (3,279) 20,905
 42,566
Changes in other regulatory assets 595,504
 (48,469) 262,317
Changes in other regulatory liabilities 2,915,795
 158,031
 61,241
Deferred tax rate change recognized as regulatory liability / asset (3,665,498) 
 
Changes in pensions and other postretirement liabilities (130,686) (136,919) (446,418)
Other (549,977) (421,676) 134,344
Net cash flow provided by operating activities 2,623,500
 2,998,699
 3,291,184
       
INVESTING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Construction/capital expenditures (3,607,532) (2,780,222) (2,500,860)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 96,000
 68,345
 53,635
Nuclear fuel purchases (377,324) (314,706) (493,604)
Payment for purchase of plant or assets (16,762) (949,329) 
Proceeds from sale of assets 100,000
 
 487,406
Insurance proceeds received for property damages 26,157
 20,968
 24,399
Changes in securitization account 1,323
 4,007
 (5,806)
NYPA value sharing payment 
 
 (70,790)
Payments to storm reserve escrow account (2,878) (1,544) (69,163)
Receipts from storm reserve escrow account 11,323
 
 5,916
Decrease in other investments 1,078
 9,055
 571
Litigation proceeds for reimbursement of spent nuclear fuel storage costs 25,493
 169,085
 18,296
Proceeds from nuclear decommissioning trust fund sales 3,162,747
 2,408,920
 2,492,176
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust funds (3,260,674) (2,484,627) (2,550,958)
Net cash flow used in investing activities (3,841,049) (3,850,048) (2,608,782)
       
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  

Table of Contents


ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Net Income$1,406,653 $1,258,244 $862,555 
Other comprehensive income (loss)   
Cash flow hedges net unrealized gain (loss)   
(net of tax expense (benefit) of ($14,776), $28,516, and $5,830)(55,487)115,026 22,098 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities   
(net of tax expense (benefit) of $5,600, ($6,539), and $30,299)22,496 (25,150)90,143 
Net unrealized investment gains (losses)   
(net of tax expense of $17,586, $14,023, and $6,393)30,704 27,183 (28,771)
Other comprehensive income (loss)(2,287)117,059 83,470 
Comprehensive Income1,404,366 1,375,303 946,025 
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries18,319 17,018 13,894 
Comprehensive Income Attributable to Entergy Corporation$1,386,047 $1,358,285 $932,131 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

45
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
       
FINANCING ACTIVITIES      
Proceeds from the issuance of:      
Long-term debt 1,809,390
 6,800,558
 3,502,189
Preferred stock of subsidiary 14,399
 
 107,426
Treasury stock 80,729
 33,114
 24,366
Retirement of long-term debt (1,585,681) (5,311,324) (3,461,518)
Repurchase of common stock 
 
 (99,807)
Repurchase / redemptions of preferred stock (20,599) (115,283) (94,285)
Changes in credit borrowings and commercial paper - net 1,163,296
 (79,337) (104,047)
Other (7,731) (6,872) (9,136)
Dividends paid:  
  
  
Common stock (628,885) (611,835) (598,897)
Preferred stock (13,940) (20,789) (19,758)
Net cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities 810,978
 688,232
 (753,467)
       
       
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents (406,571) (163,117) (71,065)
       
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 1,187,844
 1,350,961
 1,422,026
       
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period 
$781,273
 
$1,187,844
 
$1,350,961
       
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:  
  
  
Cash paid (received) during the period for:  
  
  
Interest - net of amount capitalized 
$678,371
 
$746,779
 
$663,630
Income taxes 
($13,375) 
$95,317
 
$103,589
       
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  

Table of Contents



ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES   
Consolidated net income$1,406,653 $1,258,244 $862,555 
Adjustments to reconcile consolidated net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:
Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning, including nuclear fuel amortization2,257,750 2,182,313 2,040,555 
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued(131,114)193,950 (256,848)
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges26,379 226,678 491,739 
Changes in working capital:   
Receivables(139,296)(101,227)98,546 
Fuel inventory(27,458)(28,173)45,839 
Accounts payable137,457 (71,898)97,312 
Taxes accrued207,556 (20,784)39,272 
Interest accrued7,662 937 5,220 
Deferred fuel costs(49,484)172,146 (25,829)
Other working capital accounts(143,451)(3,108)(164,173)
Changes in provisions for estimated losses(291,193)19,914 35,706 
Changes in other regulatory assets(784,494)(545,559)189,193 
Changes in other regulatory liabilities238,669 (14,781)(803,323)
Changes in pensions and other postretirement liabilities50,379 187,124 (304,941)
Other(76,149)(639,149)34,424 
Net cash flow provided by operating activities2,689,866 2,816,627 2,385,247 
INVESTING ACTIVITIES   
Construction/capital expenditures(4,694,076)(4,197,667)(3,942,010)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction119,430 144,862 130,195 
Nuclear fuel purchases(215,664)(128,366)(302,584)
Payment for purchase of plant or assets(247,121)(305,472)(26,623)
Proceeds from sale of assets28,932 24,902 
Insurance proceeds received for property damages7,040 18,270 
Changes in securitization account5,099 3,298 (5,844)
Payments to storm reserve escrow account(2,273)(8,038)(6,551)
Receipts from storm reserve escrow account297,588 
Decrease (increase) in other investments(12,755)30,319 (54,500)
Litigation proceeds for reimbursement of spent nuclear fuel storage costs72,711 2,369 59,643 
Proceeds from nuclear decommissioning trust fund sales3,107,812 4,121,351 6,484,791 
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust funds(3,203,057)(4,208,870)(6,485,676)
Net cash flow used in investing activities(4,772,306)(4,510,242)(4,105,987)
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

46

Table of Contents
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
   
  December 31,
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
     
CURRENT ASSETS    
Cash and cash equivalents:    
Cash 
$56,629
 
$129,579
Temporary cash investments 724,644
 1,058,265
Total cash and cash equivalents 781,273
 1,187,844
Accounts receivable:  
  
Customer 673,347
 654,995
Allowance for doubtful accounts (13,587) (11,924)
Other 169,377
 158,419
Accrued unbilled revenues 383,813
 368,677
Total accounts receivable 1,212,950
 1,170,167
Deferred fuel costs 95,746
 108,465
Fuel inventory - at average cost 182,643
 179,600
Materials and supplies - at average cost 723,222
 698,523
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs 133,164
 146,221
Prepayments and other 156,333
 193,448
TOTAL 3,285,331
 3,684,268
     
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
  
Investment in affiliates - at equity 198
 198
Decommissioning trust funds 7,211,993
 5,723,897
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation) 260,980
 233,641
Other 441,862
 469,664
TOTAL 7,915,033
 6,427,400
     
PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT  
  
Electric 47,287,370
 45,191,216
Property under capital lease 620,544
 619,527
Natural gas 453,162
 413,224
Construction work in progress 1,980,508
 1,378,180
Nuclear fuel 923,200
 1,037,899
TOTAL PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT 51,264,784
 48,640,046
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization 21,600,424
 20,718,639
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT - NET 29,664,360
 27,921,407
     
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
  
Regulatory assets:  
  
Regulatory asset for income taxes - net 
 761,280
Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $485,031 as of December 31, 2017 and $600,996 as of December 31, 2016) 4,935,689
 4,769,913
Deferred fuel costs 239,298
 239,100
Goodwill 377,172
 377,172
Accumulated deferred income taxes 178,204
 117,885
Other 112,062
 1,606,009
TOTAL 5,842,425
 7,871,359
     
TOTAL ASSETS 
$46,707,149
 
$45,904,434
     
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES   
Proceeds from the issuance of:   
Long-term debt12,619,201 9,304,396 8,035,536 
Preferred stock of subsidiary33,188 73,330 
Treasury stock42,600 93,862 103,315 
Common stock607,650 499,272 
Retirement of long-term debt(8,152,378)(7,619,380)(6,965,738)
Repurchase / redemptions of preferred stock(50,000)(53,868)
Changes in credit borrowings and commercial paper - net(319,238)4,389 364,031 
Other(7,524)(7,732)26,453 
Dividends paid:   
Common stock(748,342)(711,573)(647,704)
Preferred stock(18,502)(16,438)(14,185)
Net cash flow provided by financing activities3,415,817 1,638,362 1,420,442 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents1,333,377 (55,253)(300,298)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period425,722 480,975 781,273 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$1,759,099 $425,722 $480,975 
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:   
Cash paid (received) during the period for:   
Interest - net of amount capitalized$803,923 $778,209 $734,845 
Income taxes($31,228)($40,435)$19,825 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   


47
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
   
  December 31,
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
     
CURRENT LIABILITIES    
Currently maturing long-term debt 
$760,007
 
$364,900
Notes payable and commercial paper 1,578,308
 415,011
Accounts payable 1,452,216
 1,285,577
Customer deposits 401,330
 403,311
Taxes accrued 214,967
 181,114
Interest accrued 187,972
 187,229
Deferred fuel costs 146,522
 102,753
Obligations under capital leases 1,502
 2,423
Pension and other postretirement liabilities 71,612
 76,942
Other 221,771
 180,836
TOTAL 5,036,207
 3,200,096
     
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued 4,466,503
 7,495,290
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits 219,634
 227,147
Obligations under capital leases 22,015
 24,582
Regulatory liability for income taxes-net 2,900,204
 
Other regulatory liabilities 1,588,520
 1,572,929
Decommissioning and asset retirement cost liabilities 6,185,814
 5,992,476
Accumulated provisions 478,273
 481,636
Pension and other postretirement liabilities 2,910,654
 3,036,010
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $544,921 as of December 31, 2017 and $661,175 as of December 31, 2016) 14,315,259
 14,467,655
Other 393,748
 1,121,619
TOTAL 33,480,624
 34,419,344
     
Commitments and Contingencies 

 

     
Subsidiaries’ preferred stock without sinking fund 197,803
 203,185
     
 COMMON EQUITY  
  
Common stock, $.01 par value, authorized 500,000,000 shares; issued 254,752,788 shares in 2017 and in 2016 2,548
 2,548
Paid-in capital 5,433,433
 5,417,245
Retained earnings 7,977,702
 8,195,571
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (23,531) (34,971)
Less - treasury stock, at cost (74,235,135 shares in 2017 and 75,623,363 shares in 2016) 5,397,637
 5,498,584
TOTAL 7,992,515
 8,081,809
     
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 
$46,707,149
 
$45,904,434
     
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  

Table of Contents



ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT ASSETS  
Cash and cash equivalents:  
Cash$128,851 $34,242 
Temporary cash investments1,630,248 391,480 
Total cash and cash equivalents1,759,099 425,722 
Accounts receivable:  
Customer833,478 595,509 
Allowance for doubtful accounts(117,794)(7,404)
Other135,208 219,870 
Accrued unbilled revenues434,835 400,617 
Total accounts receivable1,285,727 1,208,592 
Deferred fuel costs4,380 
Fuel inventory - at average cost172,934 145,476 
Materials and supplies - at average cost962,185 824,989 
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs179,150 157,568 
Prepayments and other196,424 283,645 
TOTAL4,559,899 3,045,992 
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
Decommissioning trust funds7,253,215 6,404,030 
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation)343,328 332,864 
Other214,222 496,452 
TOTAL7,810,765 7,233,346 
PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT  
Electric59,696,443 54,271,467 
Natural gas610,768 547,110 
Construction work in progress2,012,030 2,823,291 
Nuclear fuel601,281 677,181 
TOTAL PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT62,920,522 58,319,049 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization24,067,745 23,136,356 
PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT - NET38,852,777 35,182,693 
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
Regulatory assets:  
Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $119,238 as of December 31, 2020 and $239,219 as of December 31, 2019)6,076,549 5,292,055 
Deferred fuel costs240,422 239,892 
Goodwill377,172 377,172 
Accumulated deferred income taxes76,289 64,461 
Other245,339 288,301 
TOTAL7,015,771 6,261,881 
TOTAL ASSETS$58,239,212 $51,723,912 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

48

Table of Contents
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
      
  
Common Shareholders’ Equity
 
 Subsidiaries’ Preferred Stock Common Stock Treasury Stock Paid-in Capital Retained Earnings Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) Total
 (In Thousands)
              
Balance at December 31, 2014
$94,000
 
$2,548
 
($5,497,526) 
$5,375,353
 
$10,169,657
 
($42,307) 
$10,101,725
              
Consolidated net income (loss) (a)19,828
 
 
 
 (176,562) 
 (156,734)
Other comprehensive income
 
 
 
 
 51,258
 51,258
Common stock repurchases
 
 (99,807) 
 
 
 (99,807)
Preferred stock repurchases / redemptions(94,000) 
 
 
 (285) 
 (94,285)
Common stock issuances related to stock plans
 
 44,954
 28,405
 
 
 73,359
Common stock dividends declared
 
 
 
 (598,897) 
 (598,897)
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries (a)(19,828) 
 
 
 
 
 (19,828)
              
Balance at December 31, 2015
$—
 
$2,548
 
($5,552,379) 
$5,403,758
 
$9,393,913
 
$8,951
 
$9,256,791
              
Consolidated net income (loss) (a)19,115
 
 
 
 (583,618) 
 (564,503)
Other comprehensive loss
 
 
 
 
 (43,922) (43,922)
Common stock issuances related to stock plans
 
 53,795
 13,487
 
 
 67,282
Common stock dividends declared
 
 
 
 (611,835) 
 (611,835)
Subsidiaries' capital stock redemptions
 
 
 
 (2,889) 
 (2,889)
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries (a)(19,115) 
 
 
 
 
 (19,115)
              
Balance at December 31, 2016
$—
 
$2,548
 
($5,498,584) 
$5,417,245
 
$8,195,571
 
($34,971) 
$8,081,809
              
Consolidated net income (a)13,741
 
 
 
 411,612
 
 425,353
Other comprehensive income
 
 
 
 
 11,440
 11,440
Common stock issuances related to stock plans
 
 100,947
 16,188
 
 
 117,135
Common stock dividends declared
 
 
 
 (628,885) 
 (628,885)
Subsidiaries' capital stock redemptions
 
 
 
 (596) 
 (596)
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries (a)(13,741) 
 
 
 
 
 (13,741)
              
Balance at December 31, 2017
$—
 
$2,548
 
($5,397,637) 
$5,433,433
 
$7,977,702
 
($23,531) 
$7,992,515
              
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  
  
  
  
(a) Consolidated net income and preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries include $13.7 million for 2017, $19.1 million for 2016, and $14.9 million for 2015 of preferred dividends on subsidiaries’ preferred stock without sinking fund that is not presented as equity.
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Currently maturing long-term debt$1,164,015 $795,012 
Notes payable and commercial paper1,627,489 1,946,727 
Accounts payable2,739,437 1,499,861 
Customer deposits401,512 409,171 
Taxes accrued441,011 233,455 
Interest accrued201,791 194,129 
Deferred fuel costs153,113 197,687 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities61,815 66,184 
Current portion of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes63,683 76,457 
Other206,640 201,780 
TOTAL7,060,506 5,620,463 
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued4,361,772 4,401,190 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits212,494 207,113 
Regulatory liability for income taxes-net1,521,757 1,633,159 
Other regulatory liabilities2,323,851 1,961,005 
Decommissioning and asset retirement cost liabilities6,469,452 6,159,212 
Accumulated provisions242,835 534,028 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities2,853,013 2,798,265 
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $174,635 as of December 31, 2020 and $297,981 as of December 31, 2019)21,205,761 17,078,643 
Other807,219 852,749 
TOTAL39,998,154 35,625,364 
Commitments and Contingencies00
Subsidiaries preferred stock without sinking fund
219,410 219,410 
 EQUITY  
Common stock, $0.01 par value, authorized 500,000,000 shares; issued 270,035,180 shares in 2020 and in 20192,700 2,700 
Paid-in capital6,549,923 6,564,436 
Retained earnings9,897,182 9,257,609 
Accumulated other comprehensive loss(449,207)(446,920)
Less - treasury stock, at cost (69,790,346 shares in 2020 and 70,886,400 shares in 2019)5,074,456 5,154,150 
Total common shareholders' equity10,926,142 10,223,675 
Subsidiaries preferred stock without sinking fund
35,000 35,000 
TOTAL10,961,142 10,258,675 
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY$58,239,212 $51,723,912 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  


49

Table of Contents

ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
  Common Shareholders’ Equity 
 Subsidiaries’ Preferred StockCommon StockTreasury StockPaid-in CapitalRetained EarningsAccumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)Total
 (In Thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2017$$2,548 $(5,397,637)$5,433,433 $7,977,702 $(23,531)$7,992,515 
Implementation of accounting standards0000576,257 (632,617)(56,360)
Balance at January 1, 2018$0 $2,548 ($5,397,637)$5,433,433 $8,553,959 ($656,148)$7,936,155 
Consolidated net income (a)13,894 848,661 862,555 
Other comprehensive income83,470 83,470 
Settlement of equity forwards through common stock issuance68 499,932 500,000 
Common stock issuance costs(728)(728)
Common stock issuances related to stock plans123,918 18,794 142,712 
Common stock dividends declared(647,704)(647,704)
Subsidiaries' capital stock redemptions(1,723)(1,723)
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries (a)(13,894)(13,894)
Reclassification pursuant to ASU 2018-02(32,043)15,505 (16,538)
Balance at December 31, 20182,616 (5,273,719)5,951,431 8,721,150 (557,173)8,844,305 
Implementation of accounting standards6,806 (6,806)
Balance at January 1, 20192,616 (5,273,719)5,951,431 8,727,956 (563,979)8,844,305 
Consolidated net income (a)17,018 1,241,226 1,258,244 
Other comprehensive income117,059 117,059 
Settlement of equity forwards through common stock issuance84 607,566 607,650 
Common stock issuance costs(7)(7)
Common stock issuances related to stock plans119,569 5,446 125,015 
Common stock dividends declared(711,573)(711,573)
Subsidiary's preferred stock issuance35,000 35,000 
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries (a)(17,018)(17,018)
Balance at December 31, 201935,000 2,700 (5,154,150)6,564,436 9,257,609 (446,920)10,258,675 
Implementation of accounting standards(419)0(419)
Balance at January 1, 202035,000 2,700 (5,154,150)6,564,436 9,257,190 (446,920)10,258,256 
Consolidated net income (a)18,319 1,388,334 1,406,653 
Other comprehensive loss(2,287)(2,287)
Common stock issuances related to stock plans79,694 (14,513)65,181 
Common stock dividends declared(748,342)(748,342)
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries (a)(18,319)(18,319)
Balance at December 31, 2020$35,000 $2,700 ($5,074,456)$6,549,923 $9,897,182 ($449,207)$10,961,142 
See Notes to Financial Statements.      
(a) Consolidated net income and preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries include $16.5 million for 2020, $16.5 million for 2019, and $13.9 million for 2018 of preferred dividends on subsidiaries’ preferred stock without sinking fund that is not presented as equity.

50

Table of Contents
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


NOTE 1.   SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries.  As required by generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America, all intercompany transactions have been eliminated in the consolidated financial statements.  Entergy’s Registrant Subsidiaries (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) also include their separate financial statements in this Form 10-K.  The Registrant Subsidiaries and many other Entergy subsidiaries also maintain accounts in accordance with FERC and other regulatory guidelines.


Use of Estimates in the Preparation of Financial Statements


In conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America, the preparation of Entergy Corporation’s consolidated financial statements and the separate financial statements of the Registrant Subsidiaries requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses, and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities.  Adjustments to the reported amounts of assets and liabilities may be necessary in the future to the extent that future estimates or actual results are different from the estimates used.


Revenues and Fuel Costs


Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Texas generate, transmit, and distribute electric power primarily to retail customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, respectively.  Entergy Louisiana also distributes natural gas to retail customers in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  Entergy New Orleans sells both electric power and natural gas to retail customers in the City of New Orleans, including Algiers. Prior to October 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana was the electric power supplier for Algiers. The Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment derives almost all of its revenue from sales of electric power generated by plants owned by subsidiaries in that segment.

Entergy recognizes revenue from electric power and natural gas sales when power or gas is delivered to customers.  To the extent that deliveries have occurred but a bill has not been issued, Entergy’s Utility operating companies accrue an estimate of the revenues for energy delivered since the latest billings.  The Utility operating companies calculate the estimate based upon several factors including billings through the last billing cycle in a month, actual generation in the month, historical line loss factors, and prices in effect in Entergy’s Utility operating companies’ various jurisdictions.  Changes are madeSee Note 19 to the inputs in the estimate as needed to reflect changes in billing practices.  Each month the estimated unbilled revenue amounts are recorded as revenue and unbilled accounts receivable,financial statements for a discussion of Entergy’s and the prior month’s estimate is reversed.  Therefore, changes in priceRegistrant Subsidiaries’ revenues and volume differences resulting from factors such as weather affect the calculation of unbilled revenues from one period to the next, and may result in variability in reported revenues from one period to the next as prior estimates are reversed and new estimates recorded.fuel costs.

For sales under rates implemented subject to refund, Entergy reduces revenue by accruing estimated amounts for probable refunds when Entergy believes it is probable that revenues will be refunded to customers based upon the status of the rate proceeding.

Entergy’s Utility operating companies’ rate schedules include either fuel adjustment clauses or fixed fuel factors, which allow either current recovery in billings to customers or deferral of fuel costs until the costs are billed to customers.  Where the fuel component of revenues is billed based on a pre-determined fuel cost (fixed fuel factor), the fuel factor remains in effect until changed as part of a general rate case, fuel reconciliation, or fixed fuel factor filing. System Energy’s operating revenues are intended to recover from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy

55

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans operating expenses and capital costs attributable to Grand Gulf.  The capital costs are computed by allowing a return on System Energy’s common equity funds allocable to its net investment in Grand Gulf, plus System Energy’s effective interest cost for its debt allocable to its investment in Grand Gulf.

Accounting for MISO transactions

Entergy is a member of MISO, a regional transmission organization that maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and manages one of the largest energy markets in the U.S. In the MISO market, Entergy offers its generation and bids its load into the market on an hourly basis. MISO settles these hourly offers and bids based on locational marginal prices, which is pricing for energy at a given location based on a market clearing price that takes into account physical limitations on the transmission system, generation, and demand throughout the MISO region. MISO evaluates the market participants’ energy offers and demand bids to economically and reliably dispatch the entire MISO system. Entergy nets purchases and sales within the MISO market on an hourly basis and reports in operating revenues when in a net selling position for an hour period and in operating expenses when in a net purchasing position for an hour period.  


Property, Plant, and Equipment


Property, plant, and equipment is stated at original cost less regulatory disallowances and impairments.  Depreciation is computed on the straight-line basis at rates based on the applicable estimated service lives of the various classes of property.  For the Registrant Subsidiaries, the original cost of plant retired or removed, less salvage, is charged to accumulated depreciation.  Normal maintenance, repairs, and minor replacement costs are charged to operating expenses.  Certain combined-cycle gas turbine generating units are maintained under long-term service agreements with third-party service providers. The costs under these agreements are split between operating expenses and capital additions based upon the nature of the work performed. Substantially all of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ plant is subject to mortgage liens.


Electric plant includes the portionsportion of Grand Gulf and Waterford 3 that werewas sold and leased back in a prior periods.period.  For financial reporting purposes, thesethis sale and leaseback arrangements are reflectedarrangement is reported as a financing transactions. In March 2016, transaction.

51

Table of Contents
Entergy Louisiana completed the first step in a two-step transactionCorporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to purchase the undivided interests in Waterford 3 that were previously being leased by acquiring a beneficial interest in the Waterford 3 leased assets. In February 2017 the leases were terminated and the leased assets transferred to Entergy Louisiana. See Note 10 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s purchase of the Waterford 3 leased assets.Financial Statements





Net property, plant, and equipment for Entergy (including property under capital lease and associated accumulated amortization) by business segment and functional category, as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, is shown below:
2020EntergyUtilityEntergy Wholesale CommoditiesParent & Other
 (In Millions)
Production    
Nuclear$7,526 $7,493 $33 $0 
Other6,346 6,270 76 
Transmission8,758 8,758 
Distribution10,805 10,805 
Other2,804 2,792 
Construction work in progress2,012 2,008 
Nuclear fuel601 548 53 
Property, plant, and equipment - net$38,853 $38,674 $171 $7 
2017 Entergy Utility Entergy Wholesale Commodities Parent & Other
  (In Millions)
Production  
  
  
  
Nuclear 
$6,946
 
$6,694
 
$252
 
$—
Other 4,215
 4,118
 97
 
Transmission 5,844
 5,842
 2
 
Distribution 8,000
 8,000
 
 
Other 1,755
 1,748
 3
 4
Construction work in progress 1,981
 1,951
 30
 
Nuclear fuel 923
 822
 101
 
Property, plant, and equipment - net 
$29,664
 
$29,175
 
$485
 
$4


2019EntergyUtilityEntergy Wholesale CommoditiesParent & Other
 (In Millions)
Production    
Nuclear$7,439 $7,369 $70 $0 
Other5,253 5,139 114 
Transmission7,383 7,383 
Distribution8,972 8,972 
Other2,636 2,620 
Construction work in progress2,823 2,814 
Nuclear fuel677 614 63 
Property, plant, and equipment - net$35,183 $34,911 $264 $8 


56

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


2016 Entergy Utility Entergy Wholesale Commodities Parent & Other
  (In Millions)
Production  
  
  
  
Nuclear 
$6,948
 
$6,524
 
$424
 
$—
Other 4,047
 4,000
 47
 
Transmission 5,226
 5,223
 3
 
Distribution 7,648
 7,648
 
 
Other 1,636
 1,521
 111
 4
Construction work in progress 1,378
 1,334
 44
 
Nuclear fuel 1,038
 817
 221
 
Property, plant, and equipment - net 
$27,921
 
$27,067
 
$850
 
$4

Depreciation rates on average depreciable property for Entergy approximated 3.0% in 2017, 2.8% in 2016,2020, 2.8% in 2019, and 2.9%2.8% in 2015.2018.  Included in these rates are the depreciation rates on average depreciable Utility property of 2.7% in 2020, 2.6% in 2017,2019, and 2.6% in 2016, and 2.7% 2015,2018, and the depreciation rates on average depreciable Entergy Wholesale Commodities property of 22.3%12.7% in 2017, 5.2%2020, 18.3% in 2016,2019, and 5.4%18.6% in 2015.2018. The higher depreciation rate in 2017rates for Entergy Wholesale Commodities reflectsreflect the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduceshut down and sell all of the size of theremaining plants in Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant nuclear fleet. The decrease in the depreciation rate in 2020 for Entergy Wholesale Commodities is due to the shutdown of Indian Point 2 in April 2020.


Entergy amortizes nuclear fuel using a units-of-production method.  Nuclear fuel amortization is included in fuel expense in the income statements. Because the valuevalues of their long-lived assets are impaired, and their remaining estimated operating lives significantly reduced, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants, except for Palisades, charge nuclear fuel costs directly to expense when incurred because their undiscounted cash flows are insufficient to recover the carrying amount of these capital additions.


Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation) for Entergy is reported net of accumulated depreciation of $167 million and $169$191 million as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016, respectively.$184 million as of December 31, 2019.


52

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

Construction expenditures included in accounts payable is $368$745 million and $253 million atas of December 31, 20172020 and 2016, respectively.$406 million as of December 31, 2019.


Net property, plant, and equipment for the Registrant Subsidiaries (including property under capital lease and associated accumulated amortization) by company and functional category, as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, is shown below:
2020Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Millions)
Production      
Nuclear$1,622 $3,980 $0 $0 $0 $1,891 
Other803 3,660 868 416 523 
Transmission2,053 3,756 1,235 111 1,566 37 
Distribution2,666 4,130 1,651 576 1,782 
Other506 984 325 326 273 26 
Construction work in progress234 667 135 12 880 60 
Nuclear fuel163 210 175 
Property, plant, and equipment - net$8,047 $17,388 $4,214 $1,441 $5,023 $2,189 
2017 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi 
Entergy
 New Orleans
 Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Millions)
Production            
Nuclear 
$1,368
 
$3,664
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$1,660
Other 806
 2,016
 560
 207
 531
 
Transmission 1,650
 2,148
 900
 81
 1,021
 42
Distribution 2,226
 2,748
 1,316
 440
 1,270
 
Other 247
 592
 203
 204
 168
 39
Construction work in progress 281
 1,281
 149
 47
 102
 70
Nuclear fuel 277
 337
 
 
 
 208
Property, plant, and equipment - net 
$6,855
 
$12,786
 
$3,128
 
$979
 
$3,092
 
$2,019


2019Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Millions)
Production      
Nuclear$1,611 $4,042 $0 $0 $0 $1,716 
Other785 2,789 845 192 528 
Transmission1,966 2,944 1,136 96 1,202 39 
Distribution2,457 3,078 1,489 505 1,443 
Other454 884 309 270 256 30 
Construction work in progress198 1,384 88 202 760 165 
Nuclear fuel196 268 150 
Property, plant, and equipment - net$7,667 $15,389 $3,867 $1,265 $4,189 $2,100 
57

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


2016 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Millions)
Production            
Nuclear 
$1,201
 
$3,540
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$1,783
Other 801
 1,966
 537
 213
 483
 
Transmission 1,491
 1,925
 740
 79
 943
 45
Distribution 2,144
 2,632
 1,242
 414
 1,216
 
Other 216
 517
 201
 188
 106
 25
Construction work in progress 304
 670
 118
 25
 111
 44
Nuclear fuel 307
 250
 
 
 
 260
Property, plant, and equipment - net 
$6,464
 
$11,500
 
$2,838
 
$919
 
$2,859
 
$2,157


Depreciation rates on average depreciable property for the Registrant Subsidiaries are shown below:
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
20202.6%2.4%3.5%3.1%3.1%2.1%
20192.5%2.4%3.2%3.2%3.0%2.1%
20182.5%2.3%3.2%3.5%2.7%1.9%
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
20172.5% 2.3% 3.1% 3.5% 2.6% 2.8%
20162.5% 2.3% 3.1% 3.4% 2.5% 2.8%
20152.6% 2.3% 3.2% 3.0% 2.6% 2.8%


Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation) for Entergy Louisiana is reported net of accumulated depreciation of $152.3 million and $154.4$179.8 million as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016, respectively.$168.5 million as of December 31, 2019. Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation) for Entergy Mississippi is reported net of accumulated depreciation of $0.5 million as of December 31, 2020 and $0.5 million as of December 31, 20172019.  Non-utility
53

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and 2016, respectively.  Non-utility Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation) for Entergy Texas is reported net of accumulated depreciation of $4.9 million and $4.9 million as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.2019.


As of December 31, 2017,2020, construction expenditures included in accounts payable are $58.8$59.7 million for Entergy Arkansas, $160.4$460.5 million for Entergy Louisiana, $17.1$31.4 million for Entergy Mississippi, $2.5$9.2 million for Entergy New Orleans, $32.8$116.8 million for Entergy Texas, and $33.9$17.7 million for System Energy. As of December 31, 2016,2019, construction expenditures included in accounts payable are $40.9$67.9 million for Entergy Arkansas, $114.8$115.1 million for Entergy Louisiana, $11.5$34.2 million for Entergy Mississippi, $2.3$18.4 million for Entergy New Orleans, $9.3$88.1 million for Entergy Texas, and $6.2$23.2 million for System Energy.


Jointly-Owned Generating Stations


Certain Entergy subsidiaries jointly own electric generating facilities with affiliates or third parties. All parties are required to provide their own financing.  The investments, fuel expenses, and other operation and maintenance expenses associated with these generating stations are recorded by the Entergy subsidiaries to the extent of their respective undivided ownership interests.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, the subsidiaries’ investment and accumulated depreciation in each of these generating stations were as follows:



58
54

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Generating StationsFuel TypeTotal Megawatt Capability (a)OwnershipInvestmentAccumulated Depreciation
     (In Millions)
Utility business:      
Entergy Arkansas -      
  IndependenceUnit 1Coal822 31.50 %$142 $105 
  IndependenceCommon FacilitiesCoal 15.75 %$43 $30 
  White BluffUnits 1 and 2Coal1,640 57.00 %$585 $383 
  Ouachita (b)Common FacilitiesGas66.67 %$173 $154 
  Union (c)Common FacilitiesGas25.00 %$29 $7 
Entergy Louisiana -      
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6Coal524 40.25 %$291 $209 
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6 Common FacilitiesCoal 20.98 %$21 $9 
  Big Cajun 2Unit 3Coal558 24.15 %$151 $128 
  Big Cajun 2Unit 3 Common FacilitiesCoal8.05 %$5 $3 
  Ouachita (b)Common FacilitiesGas33.33 %$90 $77 
  AcadiaCommon FacilitiesGas50.00 %$21 $1 
  Union (c)Common FacilitiesGas50.00 %$59 $8 
Entergy Mississippi -     
  IndependenceUnits 1 and 2 and Common FacilitiesCoal1,664 25.00 %$284 $173 
Entergy New Orleans -
  Union (c)Common FacilitiesGas25.00 %$29 $7 
Entergy Texas -      
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6Coal524 29.75 %$206 $119 
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6 Common FacilitiesCoal 15.52 %$7 $3 
  Big Cajun 2Unit 3Coal558 17.85 %$113 $82 
  Big Cajun 2Unit 3 Common FacilitiesCoal5.95 %$4 $1 
System Energy -      
  Grand Gulf (d)Unit 1Nuclear1,396 90.00 %$5,310 $3,280 
Entergy Wholesale Commodities:      
  IndependenceUnit 2Coal842 14.37 %$74 $55 
  IndependenceCommon FacilitiesCoal 7.18 %$20 $14 
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6Coal524 10.90 %$117 $67 
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6 Common FacilitiesCoal 5.68 %$3 $1 
(a)“Total Megawatt Capability” is the dependable load carrying capability as demonstrated under actual operating conditions based on the primary fuel (assuming no curtailments) that each station was designed to utilize.
55
Generating Stations Fuel Type Total Megawatt Capability (a) Ownership Investment Accumulated Depreciation
         (In Millions)
Utility business:           
Entergy Arkansas -           
  IndependenceUnit 1 Coal 836
 31.50% 
$140
 
$103
  IndependenceCommon Facilities Coal   15.75% 
$34
 
$27
  White BluffUnits 1 and 2 Coal 1,636
 57.00% 
$531
 
$364
  Ouachita (b)Common Facilities Gas 

 66.67% 
$172
 
$150
  Union (c)Units 1 and 2 Common Facilities Gas 

 50.00% 
$1
 
$—
  Union (c)Common Facilities Gas   25.00% 
$28
 
$3
Entergy Louisiana -       
    
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6 Coal 550
 40.25% 
$280
 
$194
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6 Common Facilities Coal   25.79% 
$15
 
$6
  Big Cajun 2Unit 3 Coal 574
 24.15% 
$150
 
$117
  Big Cajun 2Unit 3 Common Facilities Coal   8.05% 
$5
 
$2
  Ouachita (b)Common Facilities Gas 

 33.33% 
$90
 
$75
  AcadiaCommon Facilities Gas 

 50.00% 
$20
 
$—
  Union (c)Common Facilities Gas   50.00% 
$55
 
$3
Entergy Mississippi -       
    
  IndependenceUnits 1 and 2 and Common Facilities Coal 1,678
 25.00% 
$266
 
$156
Entergy New Orleans -           
  Union (c)Units 1 and 2 Common Facilities Gas 

 50.00% 
$1
 
$—
  Union (c)Common Facilities Gas   25.00% 
$28
 
$3
Entergy Texas -       
    
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6 Coal 550
 29.75% 
$200
 
$114
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6 Common Facilities Coal   14.16% 
$6
 
$3
  Big Cajun 2Unit 3 Coal 574
 17.85% 
$113
 
$76
  Big Cajun 2Unit 3 Common Facilities Coal   5.95% 
$3
 
$1
System Energy -       
    
  Grand Gulf (d)Unit 1 Nuclear 1,414
 90.00% 
$4,916
 
$3,175
Entergy Wholesale Commodities:       
    
  IndependenceUnit 2 Coal 842
 14.37% 
$73
 
$50
  IndependenceCommon Facilities Coal   7.18% 
$17
 
$12
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6 Coal 550
 10.90% 
$113
 
$62
  Roy S. NelsonUnit 6 Common Facilities Coal   5.19% 
$2
 
$1

59

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






(b)Ouachita Units 1 and 2 are owned 100% by Entergy Arkansas and Ouachita Unit 3 is owned 100% by Entergy Louisiana.  The investment and accumulated depreciation numbers above are only for the common facilities and not for the generating units.
(a)“Total Megawatt Capability” is the dependable load carrying capability as demonstrated under actual operating conditions based on the primary fuel (assuming no curtailments) that each station was designed to utilize.
(b)Ouachita Units 1 and 2 are owned 100% by Entergy Arkansas and Ouachita Unit 3 is owned 100% by Entergy Louisiana.  The investment and accumulated depreciation numbers above are only for the common facilities and not for the generating units.
(c)Union Unit 1 is owned 100% by Entergy New Orleans, Union Unit 2 is owned 100% by Entergy Arkansas, Union Units 3 and 4 are owned 100% by Entergy Louisiana.  The investment and accumulated depreciation numbers above are only for the specified common facilities and not for the generating units.
(d)Includes a leasehold interest held by System Energy.  System Energy’s Grand Gulf lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.

(c)Union Unit 1 is owned 100% by Entergy New Orleans, Union Unit 2 is owned 100% by Entergy Arkansas, Union Units 3 and 4 are owned 100% by Entergy Louisiana.  The investment and accumulated depreciation numbers above are only for the specified common facilities and not for the generating units.
(d)Includes a leasehold interest held by System Energy.  System Energy’s Grand Gulf lease obligations are discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.

Nuclear Refueling Outage Costs


Nuclear refueling outage costs are deferred during the outage and amortized over the estimated period to the next outage because these refueling outage expenses are incurred to prepare the units to operate for the next operating cycle without having to be taken off line. Because the value of their long-lived assets are impaired, and their remaining estimated operating lives significantly reduced, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants, except for Palisades, charge nuclear refueling outage costs directly to expense when incurred because their undiscounted cash flows are insufficient to recover the carrying amount of these costs.


Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC)


AFUDC represents the approximate net composite interest cost of borrowed funds and a reasonable return on the equity funds used for construction by the Registrant Subsidiaries.  AFUDC increases both the plant balance and earnings and is realized in cash through depreciation provisions included in the rates charged to customers.


Income Taxes


Entergy Corporation and the majority of its subsidiaries file a United States consolidated federal income tax return.  In September 2019, Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC and its regulated wholly-owned subsidiaries including Entergy Arkansas, LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, LLC, and Entergy New Orleans, LLC are not members ofbecame eligible to join and joined the Entergy Corporation consolidated federal income tax filing group but, rather, are included ingroup. These changes do not affect the Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC consolidated federalaccrual or allocation of income tax filing group.taxes for the Registrant Subsidiaries.  Each tax-paying entity records income taxes as if it were a separate taxpayer and consolidating adjustments are allocated to the tax filing entities in accordance with Entergy’s intercompany income tax allocation agreements.  Deferred income taxes are recorded for temporary differences between the book and tax basis of assets and liabilities, and for certain losses and credits available for carryforward.


Deferred tax assets are reduced by a valuation allowance when, in the opinion of management, it is more likely than not that some portion of the deferred tax assets will not be realized.  Deferred tax assets and liabilities are adjusted for the effects of changes in tax laws and rates in the period in which the tax or rate was enacted. See the “Other Tax Matters - Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” section in Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effects of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017.


The benefits of investment tax credits are deferred and amortized over the average useful life of the related property, as a reduction of income tax expense, for such credits associated with rate-regulated operations in accordance with ratemaking treatment.



60
56

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Earnings (Loss) per Share


The following table presents Entergy’s basic and diluted earnings per share calculation included on the consolidated statements of operations:
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Millions, Except Per Share Data)
  $/share $/share $/share
Net income attributable to Entergy Corporation$1,388.3  $1,241.2  $848.7  
Basic shares and earnings per average common share200.1 $6.94 195.2 $6.36 181.4 $4.68 
Average dilutive effect of:      
Stock options0.5 (0.02)0.6 (0.02)0.3 (0.01)
Other equity plans0.5 (0.02)0.8 (0.03)0.7 (0.02)
Equity forwards0.4 (0.01)1.0 (0.02)
Diluted shares and earnings per average common shares201.1 $6.90 197.0 $6.30 183.4 $4.63 
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Millions, Except Per Share Data)
   $/share   $/share   $/share
Net income (loss) attributable to Entergy Corporation
$411.6
  
 
($583.6)  
 
($176.6)  
Basic earnings (loss) per average common share179.7
 
$2.29
 178.9
 
($3.26) 179.2
 
($0.99)
Average dilutive effect of: 
  
  
  
  
  
Stock options0.2
 
 
 
 
 
Other equity plans0.6
 (0.01) 
 
 
 
Diluted earnings (loss) per average common shares180.5
 
$2.28
 178.9
 
($3.26) 179.2
 
($0.99)


The calculation of diluted earnings (loss) per share excluded 2,927,512523,999 options outstanding at December 31, 2017, 7,137,2102020, 173,290 options outstanding at December 31, 2016,2019, and 7,399,820956,550 options outstanding at December 31, 20152018 because they were antidilutive.


Stock-based Compensation Plans


Entergy grants stock options, restricted stock, performance units, and restricted stock unit awards to key employees of the Entergy subsidiaries under its Equity Ownership Plans, which are shareholder-approved stock-based compensation plans.  These plans are described more fully in Note 12 to the financial statements.   The cost of the stock-based compensation is charged to income over the vesting period.  Awards under Entergy’s plans generally vest over three years.

Effective January 1, 2017, Entergy adopted ASU 2016-09, “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting.” The ASU permits the election of an accounting policy change to the method of recognizingaccounts for forfeitures of stock-based compensation. Previously, Entergy recorded an estimate of the number of forfeitures expected to occur each period. Entergy elected to change this policy to account for forfeiturescompensation when they occur. This accounting change was applied retrospectively, but did not result in an adjustment to retained earnings as of January 1, 2017. As a result of adoption of the ASU, Entergy now prospectively recognizes all income tax effects related to share-based payments through the income statement. In the first quarter 2017, stock option expirations, along with other stock compensation activity, resulted in the write-off of $11.5 million of deferred tax assets.


Accounting for the Effects of Regulation


Entergy’s Utility operating companies and System Energy are rate-regulated enterprises whose rates meet three criteria specified in accounting standards.  The Utility operating companies and System Energy have rates that (i) are approved by a body (its regulator) empowered to set rates that bind customers; (ii) are cost-based; and (iii) can be charged to and collected from customers.  These criteria may also be applied to separable portions of a utility’s business, such as the generation or transmission functions, or to specific classes of customers.  Because the Utility operating companies and System Energy meet these criteria, each of them capitalizes costs whichthat would otherwise be charged to expense if the rate actions of its regulator make it probable that those costs will be recovered in future revenue.  Such capitalized costs are reflected as regulatory assets in the accompanying financial statements.  When an enterprise

61

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


concludes that recovery of a regulatory asset is no longer probable, the regulatory asset must be removed from the entity’s balance sheet.


An enterprise that ceases to meet the three criteria for all or part of its operations should report that event in its financial statements.  In general, the enterprise no longer meeting the criteria should eliminate from its balance sheet all regulatory assets and liabilities related to the applicable operations.  Additionally, if it is determined that a regulated enterprise is no longer recovering all of its costs, it is possible that an impairment may exist that could require further write-offs of plant assets.


57

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Entergy Louisiana does not apply regulatory accounting standards to the Louisiana retail deregulated portion of River Bend, the 30% interest in River Bend formerly owned by Cajun, andor its steam business, unless specific cost recovery is provided for in tariff rates.  The Louisiana retail deregulated portion of River Bend is operated under a deregulated asset plan representing a portion (approximately 15%) of River Bend plant costs, generation, revenues, and expenses established under a 1992 LPSC order.  The plan allows Entergy Louisiana to sell the electricity from the deregulated assets to Louisiana retail customers at 4.6 cents per kWh or off-system at higher prices, with certain provisions for sharing incremental revenue above 4.6 cents per kWh between customers and shareholders.


Regulatory Asset or Liability for Income Taxes


Accounting standards for income taxes provide that a regulatory asset or liability be recorded if it is probable that the currently determinable future increase or decrease in regulatory income tax expense will be recovered from or returned to customers through future rates. There are two main sources of Entergy’s regulatory asset or liability for income taxes. There is a regulatory asset related to the ratemaking treatment of the tax effects of book depreciation for the equity component of AFUDC that has been capitalized to property, plant, and equipment but for which there is no corresponding tax basis. Equity-AFUDC is a component of property, plant, and equipment that is included in rate base when the plant is placed in service. There is a regulatory liability related to the adjustment of Entergy’s net deferred income taxes that was required by the enactment in December 2017 of a change in the federal corporate income tax rate, which is discussed in Note 2 and 3 to the financial statements.


Cash and Cash Equivalents


Entergy considers all unrestricted highly liquid debt instruments with an original maturity of three months or less at date of purchase to be cash equivalents.


Securitization Recovery Trust Accounts


The funds that Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas hold in their securitization recovery trust accounts are not classified as cash and cash equivalents or restricted cash and cash equivalents because of their nature, uses, and restrictions. These funds are classified as part of other current assets and other investments, depending on the timeframe within which the Registrant Subsidiary expects to use the funds.


Allowance for Doubtful Accounts


The allowance for doubtful accounts reflects Entergy’s best estimate of losses on the accounts receivable balances.  The allowance is based oncalculated as the historical rate of customer write-offs multiplied by the current accounts receivable agings, historical experience,balance, taking into account the length of time the receivable balances have been outstanding. Although the rate of customer write-offs has historically experienced minimal variation, management monitors the current condition of individual customer accounts to manage collections and other currently available evidence.ensure bad debt expense is recorded in a timely manner. Utility operating company customer accounts receivable are written off consistent with approved regulatory requirements. See Note 19 to the financial statements for further details on the allowance for doubtful accounts.


Investments


Entergy records decommissioning trust funds on the balance sheet at their fair value. Unrealized gains and losses on investments in equity securities held by the nuclear decommissioning trust funds are recorded in earnings as they occur rather than in other comprehensive income. Because of the ability of the Registrant Subsidiaries to recover decommissioning costs in rates and in accordance with the regulatory treatment

62

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


for decommissioning trust funds, forthe Registrant Subsidiaries have recorded an offsetting amount of unrealized gains/(losses) on investment securities the Registrant Subsidiaries record an offsetting amount in other regulatory liabilities/assets.  For the 30% interest in River Bend formerly owned by Cajun,
58

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

Entergy Louisiana records an offsetting amount in other deferred credits for the excessunrealized trust earnings not currently expected to be needed to decommission the plant.  Decommissioning trust funds for Pilgrim, Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, Vermont Yankee, and Palisadesthe Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants do not meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment. Accordingly, unrealized gains/(losses) recorded on the equity securities in the trust funds are recognized in earnings. Unrealized gains recorded on the assetsavailable-for-sale debt securities in thesethe trust funds are recognized in the accumulated other comprehensive income component of shareholders’ equity because these assets are classified as available for sale.equity. Unrealized losses (where cost exceeds fair market value) on the assetsavailable-for-sale debt securities in thesethe trust funds are also recorded in the accumulated other comprehensive income component of shareholders’ equity unless the unrealized loss is other than temporary and therefore recorded in earnings.  A portion of Entergy’s decommissioning trust funds were held in a wholly-owned registered investment company, and unrealized gains and losses on both the equity and debt securities held in the registered investment company were recognized in earnings. In December 2020, Entergy liquidated its interest in the registered investment company. The assessment of whether an investment in aan available-for-sale debt security has suffered an other-than-temporary impairment is based on whether Entergy has the intent to sell or more likely than not will be required to sell the debt security before recovery of its amortized costs.  Further, if Entergy does not expect to recover the entire amortized cost basis of the debt security, an other-than-temporary impairment is considered to have occurred and it is measured by the present value of cash flows expected to be collected less the amortized cost basis (credit loss).  The assessment of whether an investment in an equity security has suffered an other-than-temporary impairment is based on a number of factors including, first, whether Entergy has the ability and intent to hold the investment to recover its value, the duration and severity of any losses, and, then, whether it is expected that the investment will recover its value within a reasonable period of time.  Effective January 1, 20182020, with the adoption of ASU 2016-01, unrealized gains2016-13, Entergy estimates the expected credit losses for its available for sale securities based on the current credit rating and losses on investments in equity securities held by the nuclear decommissioning trust funds will be recorded in earnings as they occur rather than in other comprehensive income. In accordance with the regulatory treatmentremaining life of the decommissioning trust funds ofsecurities. To the Registrant Subsidiaries,extent an offsetting amount of unrealized gains/losses will continue to be recorded in other regulatory liabilities/assets.expected credit loss is realized, the individual security comprising the loss is written off against this allowance. Entergy’s trusts are managed by third parties who operate in accordance with agreements that define investment guidelines and place restrictions on the purchases and sales of investments. See Note 16 to the financial statements for details on the decommissioning trust funds.


Equity Method Investments


Entergy owns investments that are accounted for under the equity method of accounting because Entergy’s ownership level results in significant influence, but not control, over the investee and its operations.  Entergy records its share of the investee’s comprehensive earnings and losses in income and as an increase or decrease to the investment account. Any cash distributions are charged against the investment account. Entergy discontinues the recognition of losses on equity investments when its share of losses equals or exceeds its carrying amount for an investee plus any advances made or commitments to provide additional financial support.


Derivative Financial Instruments and Commodity Derivatives


The accounting standards for derivative instruments and hedging activities require that all derivatives be recognized at fair value on the balance sheet, either as assets or liabilities, unless they meet various exceptions including the normal purchase/normal sale criteria.  The changes in the fair value of recognized derivatives are recorded each period in current earnings or other comprehensive income, depending on whether a derivative is designated as part of a hedge transaction and the type of hedge transaction. Due to regulatory treatment, an offsetting regulatory asset or liability is recorded for changes in fair value of recognized derivatives for the Registrant Subsidiaries.


Contracts for commodities that will be physically delivered in quantities expected to be used or sold in the ordinary course of business, including certain purchases and sales of power and fuel, meet the normal purchase, normal sales criteria and are not recognized on the balance sheet.  Revenues and expenses from these contracts are reported on a gross basis in the appropriate revenue and expense categories as the commodities are received or delivered.


For other contracts for commodities in which Entergy is hedging the variability of cash flows related to a variable-rate asset, liability, or forecasted transactions that qualify as cash flow hedges, the changes in the fair value of such derivative instruments are reported in other comprehensive income.  To qualify for hedge accounting, the

63

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


relationship between the hedging instrument and the hedged item must be documented to include the risk
59

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




management objective and strategy and, at inception and on an ongoing basis, the effectiveness of the hedge in offsetting the changes in the cash flows of the item being hedged.  Gains or losses accumulated in other comprehensive income are reclassified to earnings in the periods when the underlying transactions actually occur.  ThePrior to 2019, the ineffective portions of all hedges are recognized in current-period earnings. Effective January 1, 2019 with the adoption of ASU 2017-12 there will no longer be separate recognition of the ineffective portion of highly effective hedges. Changes in the fair value of derivative instruments that are not designated as cash flow hedges are recorded in current-period earnings on a mark-to-market basis.


Entergy has determined that contracts to purchase uranium do not meet the definition of a derivative under the accounting standards for derivative instruments because they do not provide for net settlement and the uranium markets are not sufficiently liquid to conclude that forward contracts are readily convertible to cash.  If the uranium markets do become sufficiently liquid in the future and Entergy begins to account for uranium purchase contracts as derivative instruments, the fair value of these contracts would be accounted for consistent with Entergy’s other derivative instruments. See Note 15 to the financial statements for further details on Entergy’s derivative instruments and hedging activities.


Fair Values


The estimated fair values of Entergy’s financial instruments and derivatives are determined using historical prices, bid prices, market quotes, and financial modeling.  Considerable judgment is required in developing the estimates of fair value.  Therefore, estimates are not necessarily indicative of the amounts that Entergy could realize in a current market exchange.  Gains or losses realized on financial instruments other than those instruments held by regulated businesses may bethe Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are reflected in future rates and therefore do not affect net income.  Entergy considers the carrying amounts of most financial instruments classified as current assets and liabilities to be a reasonable estimate of their fair value because of the short maturity of these instruments.  See Note 15 to the financial statements for further discussion of fair value.


Impairment of Long-lived Assets


Entergy periodically reviews long-lived assets held in all of its business segments whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that recoverability of these assets is uncertain.  Generally, the determination of recoverability is based on the undiscounted net cash flows expected to result from such operations and assets.  Projected net cash flows depend on the expected operating life of the assets, the future operating costs associated with the assets, the efficiency and availability of the assets and generating units, and the future market and price for energy and capacity over the remaining life of the assets. Because the values of theirthe long-lived assets are impaired, and theirthe remaining estimated operating lives significantly reduced, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants, except for Palisades, are charging additional expenditures for capital assets directly to expense when incurred because their undiscounted cash flows are insufficient to recover the carrying amount of these capital additions.incurred.  See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussions of the impairments of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants.


River Bend AFUDC


The River Bend AFUDC gross-up is a regulatory asset that represents the incremental difference imputed by the LPSC between the AFUDC actually recorded by Entergy Louisiana on a net-of-tax basis during the construction of River Bend and what the AFUDC would have been on a pre-tax basis.  The imputed amount was only calculated on that portion of River Bend that the LPSC allowed in rate base and is being amortized through August 2025.


Reacquired Debt


The premiums and costs associated with reacquired debt of Entergy’s Utility operating companies and System Energy (except that portion allocable to the deregulated operations of Entergy Louisiana) are included in
60

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

regulatory assets and are being amortized over the life of the related new issuances, or over the life of the original debt issuance if the debt is not refinanced, in accordance with ratemaking treatment.


64

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Taxes Imposed on Revenue-Producing Transactions


Governmental authorities assess taxes that are both imposed on and concurrent with a specific revenue-producing transaction between a seller and a customer, including, but not limited to, sales, use, value added, and some excise taxes.  Entergy presents these taxes on a net basis, excluding them from revenues, unless required to report them differently by a regulatory authority.

Presentation of Preferred Stock without Sinking Fund

Accounting standards regarding non-controlling interests and the classification and measurement of redeemable securities require the classification of preferred securities between liabilities and shareholders’ equity on the balance sheet if the holders of those securities have protective rights that allow them to gain control of the board of directors in certain circumstances.  These rights would have the effect of giving the holders the ability to potentially redeem their securities, even if the likelihood of occurrence of these circumstances is considered remote.  The Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and, prior to December 1, 2017, Entergy New Orleans articles of incorporation provide, generally, that the holders of each company’s preferred securities may elect a majority of the respective company’s board of directors if dividends are not paid for a year, until such time as the dividends in arrears are paid.  Therefore, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans present their preferred securities outstanding between liabilities and shareholders’ equity on the balance sheet.  In November 2017, Entergy New Orleans redeemed its outstanding preferred securities as part of a multi-step process to undertake an internal restructuring. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s internal restructuring.

The outstanding preferred securities of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Utility Holding Company (a Utility subsidiary) and Entergy Finance Holding (an Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiary), whose preferred holders also have protective rights, are similarly presented between liabilities and equity on Entergy’s consolidated balance sheets.  The preferred dividends or distributions paid by all subsidiaries are reflected for all periods presented outside of consolidated net income.


New Accounting Pronouncements


In May 2014December 2019 the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).” The ASU’s core principle is that “an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services.” The ASU details a five-step model that should be followed to achieve the core principle. With FASB issuance of ASU No. 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date,” ASU 2014-09 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2018. Entergy has selected the modified retrospective transition method. Entergy’s evaluation of ASU 2014-09 has not identified any effects that it expects will affect materially its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows, other than changes in required financial statement disclosures. The adoption of the ASU did not result in an adjustment to retained earnings as of January 1, 2018.

In January 2016 the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01 “Financial Instruments (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” The ASU requires investments in equity securities, excluding those accounted for under the equity method or resulting in consolidation of the investee, to be measured at fair value with changes recognized in net income. The ASU requires a qualitative assessment to identify impairments of investments in equity securities that do not have a readily determinable fair value. ASU 2016-01 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2018. Entergy expects that ASU 2016-01 will affect its results of operations by requiring unrealized gains and losses on investments in equity securities held by the nuclear decommissioning trust funds to be recorded in earnings rather than in other comprehensive income. In accordance with the regulatory treatment of the decommissioning trust funds of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, an offsetting amount of unrealized gains/losses will continue to be recorded in other regulatory liabilities/assets. Entergy recorded an adjustment to retained earnings of $633 million as of January 1, 2018 for the cumulative effect of the unrealized gains and losses

65

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


on investments in equity securities held by the decommissioning trust funds that do not meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment.

In February 2016 the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842).”  The ASU’s core principle is that “a lessee should recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from leases.” The ASU considers that “all leases create an asset and a liability,” and accordingly requires recording the assets and liabilities related to all leases with a term greater than 12 months.  In January 2018 the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-01, “Leases (Topic 842): Land Easement Practical Expedient for Transition to Topic 842,” providing entities the option to elect not to evaluate existing land easements that are not currently accounted for under the previous lease standard. ASU 2016-02 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2019, and Entergy does not expect to early adopt the standard.  Entergy expects that ASU 2016-02 will affect its financial position by increasing the assets and liabilities recorded relating to its operating leases.  Entergy is evaluating ASU 2016-02 for other effects on its results of operations, financial position, cash flows, and financial statement disclosures, as well as the potential to elect various practical expedients permitted by the standards.
In June 2016 the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.” The ASU requires entities to record a valuation allowance on financial instruments recorded at amortized cost or classified as available-for-sale debt securities for the total credit losses expected over the life of the instrument. Increases and decreases in the valuation allowance will be recognized immediately in earnings. ASU 2016-13 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2020. Entergy is evaluating ASU 2016-13 for the expected effects on its results of operations, financial position, and cash flows.

In October 2016 the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-16,2019-12, “Income Taxes (Topic 740): Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other Than Inventory.Simplifying the Accounting for Income Taxes.” The ASU requires entities to recognize theremoves certain exceptions for recognizing deferred taxes for investments, performing intra-period allocation, and calculating income tax consequences of intra-entity asset transfers, other than inventory, at the time the transfer occurs. ASU 2016-16 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2018 and will affect its statement of financial position by requiring recognition of deferred tax assets or liabilities arising from intra-entity asset transfers. Entergy recorded an adjustment to retained earnings of $56 million as of January 1, 2018 for the cumulative-effect of the recognition of the deferred tax assets arising from intra-entity asset transfers.

In March 2017 the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-07, “Compensation - Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost.”taxes in interim periods. The ASU requires entitiesalso adds guidance to report the service cost componentreduce complexity in certain areas, including allocating taxes to members of defined benefit pension cost and postretirement benefit cost (net benefit cost) in the same line item as other compensation costs arising from services rendered during the period.  The other components of net benefit cost are required to be presented in the income statement separately from the service cost component and outside a subtotal of income from operations.  In addition, theconsolidated group. Entergy adopted ASU allows only the service cost component of net benefit cost to be eligible for capitalization.  ASU 2017-07 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2018.  Entergy does not expect ASU 2017-07 to affect materially its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

In August 2017 the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-12, “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities.”  The ASU makes a number of amendments to hedge accounting, most significantly changing the recognition and presentation of highly effective hedges.  Upon adoption of the standard there will no longer be separate recognition or presentation of the ineffective portion of highly effective hedges.  In addition, the ASU allows entities to designate a contractually-specified component as the hedged risk, simplifies the process for assessing the effectiveness of hedges, and adds additional disclosure requirements for hedges.  ASU 2017-12 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2019. Entergy does not expect to early adopt the standard.  Entergy expects that ASU 2017-12 will affect its net income by eliminating volatility in earnings related to the ineffective portion of designated hedges on nuclear power sales.  Entergy is evaluating ASU 2017-12 for other effects on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

In February 2018 the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-02, “Income Statement- Reporting Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.”  The ASU

66

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


allows reclassification from accumulated other comprehensive income to retained earnings for certain tax effects resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that would otherwise be stranded in accumulated other comprehensive income .  ASU 2018-02 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2019, but may be early adopted. Entergy plans to adopt the ASU2019-12 in the first quarter 2018.  Entergy expects that upon the adoption of ASU 2018-02 it will record to the statement of financial position2021 on a net reclassification reducing retained earnings and increasing accumulated other comprehensive income by approximately $15 million.prospective basis. Entergy does not expect that the adoption of ASU 2018-022019-12 will have any other material effect onmaterially affect its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.




NOTE 2.  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


Regulatory assets represent probable future revenues associated with costs that Entergy expects to recover from customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. Regulatory liabilities represent probable future reductions in revenues associated with amounts that Entergy expects to benefit customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. In addition to the regulatory assets and liabilities that are specifically disclosed on the face of the balance sheets, the tables below provide detail of “Other regulatory assets” and “Other regulatory liabilities” that are included on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016:2019:
Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy
61
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)

$2,642.3
 
$2,635.5
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)
746.0
 677.2
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 – Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (Note 5)
558.9
 637.0
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)
436.5
 353.9
Opportunity Sales - recovery will be determined after final order in proceeding (Note 2 - Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding)
109.8
 
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators
86.4
 22.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
82.9
 91.4
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)
73.7
 100.0
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021
37.7
 47.9
New nuclear generation development costs (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (b)
36.4
 43.7
Other125.1
 161.2
Entergy Total
$4,935.7
 
$4,769.9


67

Table of Contents
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






Other Regulatory Assets

Entergy Arkansas
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)
$3,027.5 $2,942.4 
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)
1,018.9 920.4 
Removal costs (Note 9)
893.8 421.0 
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta and Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators and Note 5 - Securitization Bonds)
379.2 372.8 
Retired electric and gas meters - recovered through retail rates as determined by retail regulators
192.1 205.6 
Opportunity Sales - recovery will be determined after final order in proceeding (Note 2 - Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding) (b)
131.8 116.3 
Deferred COVID-19 costs recovery period to be determined (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)
105.7 
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
79.2 66.6 
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined by retail regulators
66.0 15.7 
Attorney General litigation costs - recovered over a six-year period through March 2026 (b)
25.3 29.5 
New nuclear generation development costs - recovery through formula rate plan December 2014 through November 2022 (b)
14.2 21.6 
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 - Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)
7.5 29.9 
Other135.3 150.3 
Entergy Total$6,076.5 $5,292.1 
62
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)

$757.0
 
$786.6
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)
345.2
 322.9
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)
176.9
 128.5
Opportunity sales - recovery will be determined after final order in proceeding (Note 2 - Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding)
109.8
 
Storm damage costs - recovered either through securitization or retail rates (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)
76.2
 88.9
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually
28.2
 10.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
24.3
 27.6
ANO Fukushima and Flood Barrier costs - recovered through retail rates through February 2026 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)
14.4
 16.1
Lake Catherine 4 reliability and sustainability cost deferral - recovery through retail rates (b)
8.9
 9.8
Incremental ice storm costs - recovered through 2032
7.4
 7.9
MISO costs - recovery through retail rates through 2018 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)
5.5
 11.1
Human capital management costs - recovery through retail rates through August 2019 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)
4.4
 7.0
Other9.2
 11.5
Entergy Arkansas Total
$1,567.4
 
$1,428.0


68

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Entergy LouisianaArkansas
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)
$831.5 $796.5 
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)
479.3 433.0 
Removal costs (Note 9)
212.6 168.9 
Opportunity sales - recovery will be determined after final order in proceeding (Note 2 - Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding) (b)
131.8 116.3 
Retired electric meters - recovered over 15-year period through March 2034
46.9 50.4 
Storm damage costs - recovered either through securitization or retail rates (Note 5 - Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds)
42.7 46.1 
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
24.7 18.3 
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually (b)
12.6 2.3 
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovery period to be determined (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)
10.5 
ANO Fukushima and Flood Barrier costs - recovered through retail rates through February 2026 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)
9.1 10.9 
Other30.7 24.2 
Entergy Arkansas Total$1,832.4 $1,666.9 

63
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)

$724.6
 
$715.7
Asset Retirement Obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)
218.6
 199.4
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 – Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)
71.4
 97.8
New nuclear generation development costs - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2014 through November 2022 (Note 2 - New Nuclear Generation Development Costs) (b)
35.8
 43.1
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
24.7
 27.0
Storm damage costs - recovered through retail rates (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)
14.3
 
Business combination external costs deferral - recovery through formula rate plan beginning December 2015 through November 2025 (b)
14.1
 15.2
River Bend AFUDC - recovered through August 2025 (Note 1 – River Bend AFUDC)
12.9
 14.8
Other29.4
 55.1
Entergy Louisiana Total
$1,145.8
 
$1,168.1

Entergy Mississippi
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)

$218.7
 
$217.2
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)
91.6
 82.0
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually
49.4
 9.3
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
17.6
 18.9
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)
7.6
 7.2
Other13.0
 7.6
Entergy Mississippi Total
$397.9
 
$342.2


69

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






Entergy New OrleansLouisiana
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)
$799.4 $787.7 
Removal costs (Note 9)
302.5 
Asset Retirement Obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning of nuclear units or dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)
299.0 262.5 
Retired electric meters - recovered over a 22-year period through July 2041
96.4 101.1 
Storm damage costs - recovered through retail rates (Note 2 - Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta and Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)
94.0 45.7 
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovery period to be determined (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)
48.8 
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
26.6 20.4 
New nuclear generation development costs - recovery through formula rate plan December 2014 through November 2022 (b)
14.0 21.2 
Business combination external costs deferral - recovery through formula rate plan December 2015 through November 2025 (b)
9.2 10.8 
River Bend AFUDC - recovered through August 2025 (Note 1 - River Bend AFUDC)
7.2 9.1 
Little Gypsy costs – recovered through securitization (Note 5 - Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds - Little Gypsy)
5.1 27.6 
Other23.9 29.1 
Entergy Louisiana Total$1,726.1 $1,315.2 
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)

$102.8
 
$108.8
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through retail rates and securitization (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators)
82.3
 93.6
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)
44.8
 40.1
Retail rate deferrals - recovered through rate riders as rates are redetermined monthly or annually
4.4
 4.3
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)
4.3
 4.2
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
3.0
 3.4
Rate case costs - recovered over a 6-year period through September 2021 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)
2.6
 3.0
Michoud plant maintenance – recovered over a 7-year period through September 2018
1.4
 3.3
Other5.8
 7.4
Entergy New Orleans Total
$251.4
 
$268.1


Entergy TexasMississippi
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)
$242.7 $234.4 
Removal costs (Note 9)
107.3 80.8 
Retail rate deferrals - returned through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually
44.3 7.5 
Attorney General litigation costs - recovered over a six-year period through March 2026 (b)
25.3 29.5 
Deferred COVID-19 costs - recovery period to be determined (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)
19.2 
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
13.5 14.9 
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)
7.9 7.8 
Other7.1 3.1 
Entergy Mississippi Total$467.3 $378.0 

64
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 5 - Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds)

$386.1
 
$442.4
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)
169.2
 201.7
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021
37.7
 47.9
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)
55.2
 33.5
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
8.7
 9.0
Other4.5
 5.7
Entergy Texas Total
$661.4
 
$740.2

System Energy
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 – Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (a)

$202.7
 
$193.5
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)
169.1
 142.5
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)
67.9
 69.7
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
4.6
 5.5
System Energy Total
$444.3
 
$411.2

(a)Does not earn a return on investment, but is offset by related liabilities.
(b)Does not earn a return on investment.

70

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Other Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)

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

 68.0
Other43.5
 79.8
Entergy Total
$1,588.5
 
$1,572.9

Entergy ArkansasNew Orleans
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)
$75.7 $85.9 
Removal costs - (Note 9)
63.2 52.9 
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta and Note 5 - Entergy New Orleans Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Isaac)
55.2 59.6 
Retired meters - recovered over a 12-year period through July 2031 (b)
21.7 24.6 
Deferred COVID-19 costs recovery period to be determined (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)
14.3 
Rate case costs - recovered over a three-year period through July 2022 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)
5.7 7.0 
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of dismantlement of non-nuclear power plants (Note 9) (a)
5.2 4.9 
New Orleans Power Station deferral – recovered over a five-year period through October 2025 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)
5.0 
Algiers customer migration costs - recovered over a five-year period through July 2024 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)
3.9 4.9 
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
1.9 2.3 
Other15.0 17.3 
Entergy New Orleans Total$266.8 $259.4 

Entergy Texas
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Storm damage costs, including hurricane costs - recovered through securitization and retail rates (Note 2 - Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta and Note 5 - Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds)
$187.3 $221.4 
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans, Other Postretirement Benefits, and Non-Qualified Pension Plans) (a)
140.1 167.7 
Removal costs (Note 9)
115.3 42.5 
Retired electric meters - recovered over 13-year period through February 2032
26.0 28.4 
Neches and Sabine costs - recovered over a 10-year period through September 2028 (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)
18.8 21.2 
Deferred COVID-19 costs recovery period to be determined (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings) (b)
12.9 
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
10.5 7.7 
Transition to competition costs - recovered over a 15-year period through February 2021
2.1 14.9 
Other11.7 8.8 
Entergy Texas Total$524.7 $512.6 

65
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)

$354.0
 
$280.8
Other9.6
 25.1
Entergy Arkansas Total
$363.6
 
$305.9


71

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Entergy Louisiana

 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)

$323.7
 
$235.4
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8) (b)
151.6
 202.4
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 2 - Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators) (b)
124.8
 165.5
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates beginning December 2015 through November 2024 (Note 2 - Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination)
65.8
 83.5
Gas hedging costs - refunded through fuel rates (Note 15 - Derivatives)

 10.9
Asset Retirement Obligation - return to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)
36.7
 32.7
Removal costs - returned to customers through depreciation rates (Note 9) (a)
32.4
 53.9
Waterford 3 replacement steam generator provision (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)

 68.0
Other26.1
 28.7
Entergy Louisiana Total
$761.1
 
$881.0

Entergy Texas
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Transition to competition costs - returned to customers through rate riders when rates are redetermined periodically

$4.8
 
$6.2
Other2.1
 2.3
Entergy Texas Total
$6.9
 
$8.5

System Energy
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Asset retirement obligation - recovery dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)
$226.3 $210.9 
Pension & postretirement costs (Note 11 - Qualified Pension Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits) (a)
217.8 200.3 
Removal costs - recovered through depreciation rates (Note 9)
92.9 75.9 
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt - recovered over term of debt
2.0 3.0 
System Energy Total$539.0 $490.1 
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 17) (a)

$311.6
 
$219.3
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 10 - Sale and Leaseback Transactions)
67.9
 67.9
Entergy Arkansass accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and the FERC
44.4
 44.4
Entergy Mississippis accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement
32.1
 39.3
System Energy Total
$456.0
 
$370.9


(a)Offset by related asset.
(b)As a result of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, and the lowering of the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective January 2018, the Vidalia purchased power agreement regulatory liability was reduced by $30.5 million and the Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation regulatory liabilities were reduced by $25.0 million, with corresponding increases to Other regulatory credits on the income statement. The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed further in Note 3 to the financial statements.

(a)Does not earn a return on investment, but is offset by related liabilities.

(b)Does not earn a return on investment.

Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta

In August and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, including New Orleans, Texas, and, to a lesser extent, in Arkansas and Mississippi. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of the electrical system damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $2.4 billion, including $2.0 billion at Entergy Louisiana, $300 million at Entergy Texas, and $40 million at Entergy New Orleans. The estimate includes approximately $1.98 billion in capital costs, including $1.67 billion at Entergy Louisiana, $245 million at Entergy Texas, and $30 million at Entergy New Orleans and approximately $420 million in non-capital costs, including $330 million at Entergy Louisiana, $55 million at Entergy Texas, and $10 million at Entergy New Orleans. This estimate includes all costs to restore power and repair or replace the damages from the hurricanes, except for the cost to repair or replace damage incurred to an Entergy Louisiana transmission line in southeast Louisiana, and the amount of that cost could be significant. The restoration plan for this transmission line and the related cost estimate is still being evaluated.

Entergy recorded accounts payable and corresponding construction work in progress and regulatory assets for the estimated costs incurred that were necessary to return customers to service. Entergy recorded the regulatory assets in accordance with its accounting policies and based on the historic treatment of such costs in its service area because management believes that recovery through some form of regulatory mechanism is probable. There are well-established mechanisms and precedent for addressing these catastrophic events and providing for recovery of prudently incurred storm costs in accordance with applicable regulatory and legal principles. Because Entergy has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

The Utility operating companies are considering all available avenues to recover storm-related costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta including accessing funded storm reserve escrows and securitization. In November 2020, Entergy Louisiana drew $257 million from its funded storm reserves. Each Utility operating company is responsible for its restoration cost obligations and for recovering or financing its storm-related costs. Storm cost recovery or financing will be subject to review by applicable regulatory authorities.

In October 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments to facilitate issuance of shorter-term bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta. Subsequently, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff
72
66

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



filed a joint motion seeking approval to exclude from the derivation of Entergy Louisiana’s capital structure and cost rate of debt for ratemaking purposes, including the allowance for funds used during construction, shorter-term debt up to $1.1 billion issued by Entergy Louisiana to fund costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta costs on an interim basis. In November 2020 the LPSC issued an order approving the joint motion, and Entergy Louisiana issued $1.1 billion of 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023.

In December 2020, Entergy Louisiana provided the LPSC with notification that it intends to initiate a storm cost recovery proceeding in the near future, which will permit the LPSC to retain any outside consultants and counsel needed to review the storm cost recovery application. In February 2021 the LPSC voted to retain outside counsel and consultants to assist in the review of Entergy Louisiana’s upcoming storm cost recovery application, which is expected to be filed in March 2021.

Other Regulatory Liabilities

Entergy
 20202019
(In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)
$1,694.1 $1,300.1 
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 3) (b)
144.3 97.1 
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8) (b)
115.7 127.3 
Retail rate rider over-recovery - refunded through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually
75.1 62.3 
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 5 - Grand Gulf Sale-Leaseback Transactions)
55.6 55.6 
Entergy Arkansass accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and the FERC
44.4 44.4 
Future formula rate plan revenue reductions (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)
43.5 51.1 
Asset retirement obligation - return to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)
29.7 37.2 
Internal restructuring guaranteed tax credits (Note 2 - Internal Restructuring)
26.4 33.0 
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates December 2015 through November 2024
21.5 35.7 
Advanced metering system (AMS) surcharge - return to customers dependent upon AMS spend
20.1 25.3 
Excess decommissioning recovery for Willow Glen - (Note 14 - Dispositions)
21.2 
Entergy Mississippis accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement
10.7 17.8 
Income tax rate change - returned to electric and gas customers through retail rates (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)
7.3 13.9 
Other35.5 39.0 
Entergy Total$2,323.9 $1,961.0 

67

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Entergy Arkansas
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)
$597.4 $460.3 
Future formula rate plan revenue reductions (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)
43.5 46.6 
Internal restructuring guaranteed customer credits (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)
26.4 33.0 
Retail rate rider over-recovery - refunded through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually
19.6 19.7 
Entergy Arkansas Total$686.9 $559.6 

Entergy Louisiana
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)
$567.7 $436.5 
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation (Note 3)
144.3 97.1 
Vidalia purchased power agreement (Note 8) (b)
115.7 127.3 
Asset Retirement Obligation - return to customers dependent upon timing of decommissioning (Note 9) (a)
29.7 37.1 
Business combination guaranteed customer benefits - returned to customers through retail rates and fuel rates December 2015 through November 2024
21.5 35.7 
Excess decommissioning recovery for Willow Glen - returned over one-year period through retail rates (Note 14 - Dispositions)
21.2 
Other39.4 39.2 
Entergy Louisiana Total$918.3 $794.1 

Entergy Mississippi
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Retail rate rider over-recovery - refunded through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually
$14.2 $14.6 
Grand Gulf Over-Recovery - returned to customers through rate riders as rates are redetermined annually
1.0 2.4 
Future formula rate plan revenue reductions (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)
4.5 
Other0.6 
Entergy Mississippi Total$15.8 $21.5 

68

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

Entergy Texas
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Advanced metering system (AMS) surcharge - returned to customers dependent upon AMS spend
$20.1 $25.3 
Income tax rate change - refunded through a rate rider (Note 2 - Retail Rate Proceedings)
6.5 10.4 
Transition to competition costs - returned to customers through rate riders when rates are redetermined periodically
3.2 3.8 
Other2.5 2.6 
Entergy Texas Total$32.3 $42.1 

System Energy
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Unrealized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust funds (Note 16) (a)
$529.0 $403.3 
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback - (Note 5 - Grand Gulf Sale-Leaseback Transactions)
55.6 55.6 
Entergy Arkansass accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - will be returned to customers when approved by the APSC and the FERC
44.4 44.4 
Grand Gulf sale-leaseback accumulated deferred income taxes (a)
25.7 12.3 
Entergy Mississippis accumulated accelerated Grand Gulf amortization - amortized and credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement
10.7 17.8 
System Energy Total$665.4 $533.4 

(a)Offset by related asset.
(b)As a result of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, and the lowering of the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective January 2018, the Vidalia purchased power agreement regulatory liability was reduced by $30.5 million and the Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation regulatory liabilities were reduced by $25 million, with corresponding increases to Other regulatory credits on the income statement. The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed further in Note 3 to the financial statements.

Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act


See the “Other Tax Matters - Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” section in Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effects of the December 2017 enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, including its effects on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ regulatory asset/liability for income taxes.


After enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the APSC issued an order that applies to investor-owned utilities in Arkansas, including Entergy Arkansas. The order requests information regarding certain effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and requires the utilities to begin, effective January 1, 2018, to record regulatory liabilities to record the effects of the Act, subject to review by the APSC, although the order acknowledges that the exact amount of tax savings and rate reductions cannot be determined at this time. Entergy Arkansas requested clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing regarding the requirement to record a regulatory liability, and also responded to the request for information. In

Consistent with its request for clarification Entergy Arkansas sought clarification that the amount of any regulatory liability would be determined only after the utilities are heard and present evidence on the issue, as this otherwise would be arbitrary and could implicate single-issue and retroactive ratemaking. The APSC has not responded to the request for clarification. In its response to the APSC’s request for information Entergy Arkansas states that its formula rate plan rider already provides the means for customers to realize the benefits of the Act, except for the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes. Entergy Arkansas’s next formula rate plan filing is scheduled for July 2018. Entergy Arkansas intendspreviously stated intent to return unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers as expeditiously as possible, subjectEntergy Arkansas initiated a tariff proceeding in February 2018 proposing to establish a tax adjustment rider to provide retail customers with certain tax benefits of $467 million associated with the Tax Act. For the residential customer class, unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes were returned to customers over a 21-month period from April 2018 through December 2019. For all other customer classes, unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes were returned to customers over a nine-month period from April 2018 through December 2018. A true-up provision also was included in the rider, with any over- or under-returned unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes credited or billed to customers during the billing month of January 2020, with any residual amounts of over- or under-returned unprotected excess
69

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




accumulated deferred income taxes to be flowed through Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider. In March 2018 the APSC approved the tax adjustment rider effective with the first billing cycle of April 2018.

As discussed below, in July 2018, Entergy Arkansas made its formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2019 calendar year. A hearing was held in May 2018 regarding the APSC’s inquiries into the effects of the Tax Act, including Entergy Arkansas’s proposal to utilize its formula rate plan rider for its customers to realize the remaining benefits of the Tax Act. Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan rider included a netting adjustment that compared actual annual results to the allowed rate of return on common equity. In July 2018 the APSC issued an order agreeing with Entergy Arkansas’s proposal to have the effects of the Tax Act on current income tax expense flow through Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan rider and with Entergy Arkansas’s treatment of protected and unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes. The APSC also directed Entergy Arkansas to submit in the tax adjustment rider proceeding, discussed above, the adjustments to all other riders affected by the Tax Act and to include an amendment for a true up mechanism where a rider affected by the Tax Act does not already contain a true-up mechanism. Pursuant to a subsequent request2018 settlement agreement in Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan proceeding, Entergy Arkansas also removed the net operating loss accumulated deferred income tax asset caused by the Tax Act from Entergy Arkansas’s tax adjustment rider. Entergy Arkansas’s compliance tariff filings were accepted by the APSC in October 2018. In February 2021, pursuant to its 2020 formula rate plan evaluation report settlement, Entergy Arkansas flowed $5.6 million in credits to customers through the tax adjustment rider based on the outcome of certain federal tax positions and a decrease in the state tax rate; the tax adjustment rider will be madeclosed after the credits are issued.

Entergy Louisiana

In an electric formula rate plan settlement approved by the LPSC in April 2018 the parties agreed that Entergy Louisiana would return to customers one-half of its eligible unprotected excess deferred income taxes from May 2018 through December 2018 and return to customers the other half from January 2019 through August 2022. In addition, the settlement provided that in order to flow back to customers certain other tax benefits created by the Tax Act, Entergy Louisiana established a regulatory liability effective January 1, 2018 in the amount of $9.1 million per month to reflect these tax benefits already included in retail rates until new base rates under the formula rate plan were established in September 2018, and this regulatory liability was returned to customers over the September 2018 through August 2019 formula rate plan rate-effective period. The LPSC staff and intervenors in the settlement reserved the right to obtain data from Entergy Louisiana to confirm the determination of excess accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the Tax Act and the analysis thereof as part of the formula rate plan review proceeding for the 2017 test year filing which, as discussed below, Entergy Louisiana filed in June 2018.

Entergy Mississippi

Entergy Mississippi filed its 2018 formula rate plan in March 2018 and included a proposal to return all of its unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers through rates or in exchange for other assets, or a combination of both, by the end of 2018. In June 2018 the MPSC approved a stipulation filed by Entergy ArkansasMississippi and approval by the APSC.Mississippi Public Utilities Staff in Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan filing that addressed Entergy Mississippi’s 2018 formula rate plan evaluation report and the ratemaking effects of the Tax Act. The stipulation provided for incorporating the reduction of the statutory federal income tax rate through Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan. The stipulation approved in June 2018 provided for the flow-back of protected excess accumulated deferred income taxes over the remaining lives of the assets through the formula rate plan. The stipulation also provided for the offset of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes of $127.2 million against net utility plant and $2.2 million against other regulatory assets, and the return to customers of the remaining balance of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes as recovery of a portion of fuel oil inventory and customer bill credits over a three-month period from July 2018 through September 2018, with an insignificant true-up reflected in the November 2018 power management rider filing. Entergy Mississippi recorded the reduction against net utility plant and other regulatory assets in June 2018. In third quarter 2018, Entergy Mississippi returned

70

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes of $25.8 million through customer bill credits and $5.8 million through the sale of fuel oil inventory.

Entergy New Orleans

After enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the LPSC passed an agenda item requiring utilities, including Entergy Louisiana, to file reports regarding certain effects of the Act. Entergy Louisiana responded to the directive and stated in its response that it is working with the LPSC staff and other interested parties to extend its formula rate plan such that its next base rate change will occur effective September 2018, or it would file a base rate case. Entergy Louisiana went on to state that if the formula rate plan is extended Entergy Louisiana’s next adjustment of rates will reflect the new 21% federal corporate income tax rate. Entergy Louisiana stated that it is working with the LPSC staff and interested parties to determine when the tax rate reduction will be reflected in rates, along with when and how the excess accumulated deferred income taxes will be reflected in rates, and how certain tax sharing agreement customer credits will be adjusted. On February 21, 2018, the LPSC issued a special order requiring that all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities, beginning as of January 1, 2018, record as a regulatory liability (deferred liability) the amount required to reflect the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% and the associated savings in excess accumulated deferred income taxes until such time as its rates are changed by the LPSC to reflect these federal tax savings. In the same special order, the LPSC also initiated a new rulemaking docket to consider these issues and the appropriate manner in which to flow through the benefits to Louisiana customers and to provide an opportunity for discovery and comments of jurisdictional utilities and other interested stakeholders. The rulemaking further requires the LPSC staff to report back to the LPSC as soon as practicable and preferably by the March 21, 2018, LPSC Business and Executive Session with recommendations as to how the federal tax-related benefits will be flowed through to Louisiana customers.

After enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the MPSC ordered utilities, including Entergy Mississippi, that operate under a formula rate plan to file a description by February 26, 2018, of how the Act will be reflected in the formula rate plan under which the utility operates. In addition to the description that is due February 26, 2018, Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan 2018 test year filing is scheduled to be filed by March 15, 2018.

After enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the City Council passed a resolution ordering Entergy New Orleans to, effective January 1, 2018, record deferred regulatory liabilities to account for the Tax Act’s effect on Entergy New Orleans’s revenue requirement and to make a filing by mid-March 2018 regarding the Tax Act’s effects on Entergy New Orleans’s operating income and rate base and potential mechanisms for customers to receive benefits of the Tax Act. The City Council’s resolution also directed Entergy New Orleans to request that Entergy Services file with the FERC for revisions of the Unit Power Sales Agreement and MSS-4 replacement tariffs to address the return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. Entergy planssubmitted filings of this type to make suchthe FERC.

In March 2018, Entergy New Orleans filed its response to the resolution stating that the Tax Act reduced income tax expense from what was then reflected in rates by approximately $8.2 million annually for electric operations and by approximately $1.3 million annually for gas operations. In the filing, Entergy New Orleans proposed to return to customers from June 2018 through August 2019 the benefits of the reduction in income tax expense and its unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes through a combination of bill credits and investments in energy efficiency programs, grid modernization, and Smart City projects. Entergy New Orleans submitted supplemental information in April 2018 and May 2018. Shortly thereafter, Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors reached an agreement in principle that provides for benefits that will be realized by Entergy New Orleans customers through bill credits that started in July 2018 and offsets to future investments in energy efficiency programs, grid modernization, and Smart City projects, as well as additional benefits related to the filings withmade at the FERCFERC. The agreement in principle was approved by the end of MarchCity Council in June 2018.

73

Entergy Corporation and SubsidiariesTexas
Notes to Financial Statements



After enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the PUCT issued an order requiring most utilities, including Entergy Texas, beginning January 25, 2018, to record a regulatory liability for the difference between revenues collected under existing rates and revenues that would have been collected had existing rates been set using the new federal income tax rates and also for the balance of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. The order also directs the PUCT staff to investigate each investor-owned utility on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate mechanism to adjust its rates to reflect the changes under the Act. In both a memorandum issued prior to the open meeting when the order was discussed and during the discussions at the open meeting discussing the order, the PUCT indicated that it would consider utility earnings in determining the treatment of the liability and the effects of the Act. Entergy Texas had previously provided information to the PUCT Staff in the docketstaff and stated that it expectsexpected the PUCT to address the lower tax expense as part of Entergy Texas’s rate case expected to be filed in May 2018.

In May 2018, Entergy Texas also stated that it would be inappropriate forfiled its 2018 base rate case with the PUCT to require a refundPUCT. Entergy Texas’s proposed rates and revenues reflected the inclusion of the reduction infederal income tax expensereductions due to the Tax Act. The PUCT issued an order in December 2018 resultingestablishing that 1) $25 million be credited to customers through a rider to reflect the lower federal income tax rate applicable to Entergy Texas from January 2018 through the Act ondate new rates were implemented, 2) $242.5 million of protected excess accumulated deferred income taxes be returned to customers through base rates under the average rate assumption method over the lives of the associated assets, and 3) $185.2 million of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes be returned to customers through a retroactive basisrider. The unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes rider includes carrying charges and withoutis in effect over a comprehensive reviewperiod of Entergy Texas’s cost12 months for larger customers and over a period of service and earned return on equity. four years for other customers.

System Energy

In a subsequent order issued followingfiling made with the FebruaryFERC in March 2018, open meeting,System Energy proposed revisions to the PUCT clarified that carrying costs need not be recorded as part of the regulatory liability.

The Registrant Subsidiaries will continueUnit Power Sales Agreement to work with their respective regulators to determine the appropriate path forward in each jurisdiction regardingreflect the effects of the Tax Act.In the filing System Energy proposed to return identified quantities of 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 a hearing was held in March 2020.The retail regulators of the Utility operating companies that are parties to the Unit

71

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Power Sales Agreement challenged the treatment and amount of excess accumulated deferred income tax liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions related to nuclear decommissioning. In July 2020 the presiding ALJ in the proceeding issued an initial decision finding that there is an additional $147 million in unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes related to System Energy’s uncertain decommissioning tax deduction. The initial decision determined that System Energy should have included the $147 million in its March 2018 filing. System Energy had not included credits related to the effect of the Tax Act on the uncertain decommissioning tax position because it was uncertain whether the IRS would allow the deduction. The initial decision rejected both System Energy’s alternative argument that any crediting should occur over a ten-year period and the retail regulators’ argument that any crediting should occur over a two-year period. Instead, the initial decision concluded that System Energy should credit the additional unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes in a single lump sum revenue requirement reduction following a FERC order addressing the initial decision.

The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process. In September 2020, System Energy filed a brief on exceptions with the FERC, re-urging its positions and requesting the reversal of the ALJ’s initial decision. In December 2020, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and FERC trial staff filed briefs opposing exceptions. The FERC will review the case and issue an order in the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Credits, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision.

As discussed below inGrand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue,”in September 2020 the IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA) and Entergy executed it. In September 2020, System Energy filed a motion to lodge the NOPA into the record in the FERC proceeding. In October 2020 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and FERC trial staff filed oppositions to System Energy’s motion. As a result of the NOPA, System Energy filed, in October 2020, a new Federal Power Act section 205 filing at the FERC to credit the excess accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the decommissioning uncertain tax position. System Energy proposes to credit the entire amount of the excess accumulated deferred income taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position by issuing a one-time credit of $17.8 million. In November 2020, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a protest to the filing, and System Energy responded.

In November 2020 the IRS issued the Revenue Agent’s Report (RAR) for the 2014-2015 tax years and in December 2020 Entergy executed it.In December 2020, System Energy filed a motion to lodge the RAR into the record in the FERC proceeding addressing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.In January 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a joint answer opposing System Energy’s motion, and the FERC trial staff also filed an answer opposing System Energy’s motion.

As a result of the RAR, in December 2020, System Energy also filed an amendment to its Federal Power Act section 205 filing to credit excess accumulated deferred income taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position.The amendment proposed the inclusion of the RAR as support for the filing.In December 2020, the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed a protest in response to the amendment, reiterating objections to the filing to credit excess accumulated deferred income taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position. In February 2021 the FERC issued an order accepting System Energy’s Federal Power Act section 205 filing subject to refund, setting it for hearing, and holding the hearing in abeyance.

In November 2020, System Energy filed a motion to vacate the ALJ’s decision, arguing that it had been overtaken by changed circumstances because of the IRS’s determination resulting from the NOPA and RAR.In January 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a joint answer opposing System Energy’s motion, and the FERC trial staff also filed an answer opposing System Energy’s motion.There is no formal deadline for FERC to rule on the motion.

72

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

Fuel and purchased power cost recovery


Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy TexasThe Utility operating companies are allowed to recover fuel and purchased power costs through fuel mechanisms included in electric and gas rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery revenues.  The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs is generally recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the Utility operating companies’ financial statements.  The table below shows the amount of deferred fuel costs as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 that Entergy expects to recover (or return to customers) through fuel mechanisms, subject to subsequent regulatory review.

2017 2016 20202019
(In Millions) (In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas (a)
$130.4
 
$163.6
Entergy Arkansas (a)$15.2 $14.0 
Entergy Louisiana (b)
$96.7
 
$119.9
Entergy Louisiana (b)$170.4 $112.5 
Entergy Mississippi
$32.4
 
$7.0
Entergy Mississippi($14.7)($70.4)
Entergy New Orleans (b)
($3.7) 
$8.9
Entergy New Orleans (b)$6.2 ($0.8)
Entergy Texas
($67.3) 
($54.5)Entergy Texas($85.4)($13.0)


(a)Includes $67.1 million in 2017 and $66.9 million in 2016 of fuel and purchased power costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.
(b)Includes $168.1 million in each year for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million in each year for Entergy New Orleans of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

(a)Includes $68.2 million in 2020 and $67.7 million in 2019 of fuel and purchased power costs whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.
(b)Includes $168.1 million in both years for Entergy Louisiana and $4.1 million in both years for Entergy New Orleans of fuel, purchased power, and capacity costs, which do not currently earn a return on investment and whose recovery periods are indeterminate but are expected to be recovered over a period greater than twelve months.

Entergy Arkansas


Production Cost Allocation Rider

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section below.  These costs cause an increase in Entergy

74

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


Arkansas’s deferred fuel cost balance because Entergy Arkansas pays the costs over seven months but collects the costs from customers over twelve months.

In May 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider to recover the $3 million unrecovered retail balance as of December 31, 2013 and the $67.8 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment made in May 2014 as a result of the compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders related to the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. In January 2015 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Arkansas’s request for recovery of the $3 million under-recovered amount based on the true-up of the production cost allocation rider and the $67.8 million May 2014 System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment subject to refund with interest, with recovery of these payments concluding with the last billing cycle in December 2015. The APSC also found that Entergy Arkansas is entitled to carrying charges pursuant to the current terms of the production cost allocation rider. Entergy Arkansas made its compliance filing pursuant to the order in January 2015 and the APSC issued its approval order, also in January 2015. The redetermined rate went into effect with the first billing cycle of February 2015.

In May 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which included a $38 million payment made by Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s February 2014 order related to the comprehensive bandwidth recalculation for calendar year 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. The redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update was added to the redetermined rate from the 2014 production cost allocation rider update and the combined rate was effective with the first billing cycle of July 2015. This combined rate was effective through December 2015. The collection of the remainder of the redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update continued through June 2016.

In May 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination pursuant to the production cost allocation rider, which reflected recovery of the production cost allocation rider true-up adjustment of the 2014 and 2015 unrecovered retail balance in the amount of $1.9 million. Additionally, the redetermined rates reflected the recovery of a $1.9 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment resulting from a compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s December 2015 order related to test year 2009 production costs. The rates for the 2016 production cost allocation rider update became effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and the rates were effective through June 2017.

In May 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination pursuant to the production cost allocation rider, which reflected a credit amount of $0.3 million resulting from a compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s September 2016 order. Additionally, the redetermined rate reflected recovery of the production cost allocation rider true-up adjustment of the 2016 unrecovered retail balance in the amount of $0.3 million. Because of the small effect of the 2017 production cost allocation rider update, Entergy Arkansas proposed to reduce the effective period of the update to one month, July 2017. After the one month collection period, rates were set to zero for all rate classes for the period August 2017 through June 2018.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider


Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and purchased energy costs in monthly customer bills.  The rider utilizes the prior calendar-year energy costs and projected energy sales for the twelve-month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an energy cost rate, which is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over- or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy costs for the prior calendar year.  The energy cost recovery rider tariff also allows an interim rate request depending upon the level of over- or under-recovery of fuel and purchased energy costs.


In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its redetermination of itsupcoming energy cost rate redetermination filing that was subsequently filedmade in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs incurred in 2013 from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate. Therate $65.9 million is an estimate of the incremental fuel and replacement

75

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


energy costs that Entergy Arkansas incurred in 2013 as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information iswas available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. TheIn February 2014 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request to retain that amount in February 2014.its deferred fuel balance. In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed for a change in rates pursuant to its formula rate plan rider. In that docket,proceeding, the APSC approved a settlement agreement agreed upon by the parties, including a provision that requires Entergy Arkansas to initiate a docketregulatory proceeding for the purpose of recovering funds currently withheld from rates and related to the stator incident, including the $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs previously noted, subject to certain timelines and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.


73

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination.


In March 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01547 per kWh to $0.01882 per kWh. The Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual redetermination filing requesting that the APSC suspend the proposed tariff to investigate the amount of the redetermination or, alternatively, to allow recovery subject to refund. Among the reasons the Attorney General cited for suspension were questions pertaining to how Entergy Arkansas forecasted sales and potential implications of the Tax Act. Entergy Arkansas replied to the Attorney General’s filing and stated that, to the extent there are questions pertaining to its load forecasting or the operation of the energy cost recovery rider, those issues exceed the scope of the instant rate redetermination. Entergy Arkansas also stated that potential effects of the Tax Act are appropriately considered in the APSC’s separate proceeding regarding potential implications of the tax law. The APSC general staff filed a reply to the Attorney General’s filing and agreed that Entergy Arkansas’s filing complied with the terms of the energy cost recovery rider. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2018. Subsequently in April 2018 the APSC issued an order declining to suspend Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider rate and declining to require further investigation at that time of the issues suggested by the Attorney General in the proceeding. Following a period of discovery, the Attorney General filed a supplemental response in October 2018 raising new issues with Entergy Arkansas’s March 2018 rate redetermination and asserting that $45.7 million of the increase should be collected subject to refund pending further investigation. Entergy Arkansas filed to dismiss the Attorney General’s supplemental response, the APSC general staff filed a motion to strike the Attorney General’s filing, and the Attorney General filed a supplemental response disputing Entergy Arkansas and the APSC staff’s filing. Applicable APSC rules and processes authorize its general staff to initiate periodic audits of Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider. In late-2018 the APSC general staff notified Entergy Arkansas it has initiated an audit of the 2017 fuel costs. The time in which the audit will be complete is uncertain at this time.

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.

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

74

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

Entergy Louisiana


Entergy Louisiana recovers electric fuel and purchased power costs for the billing month based upon the level of such costs incurred two months prior to the billing month. Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustments include estimates for the billing month adjusted by a surcharge or credit that arises from an annual reconciliation of fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.


In April 2010July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’sthe fuel adjustment clause filings.filings by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, whose business was combined with Entergy Louisiana in 2015. The audit includedincludes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. In October 2016 the LPSC staff filed testimony affirming the recommendation in its audit report on the lone remaining issue that nuclear dry fuel storage costs should be realigned to base rates. The parties agreed to remove that remaining issue to a separate docket because the same issue was outstanding in the Entergy Gulf States Louisiana audit for the same time period. In November 2016 the LPSC approved the resolution of this audit and the creation of a new docket for the resolution of the proper method of recovery for nuclear dry fuel storage costs. In December 2016 the LPSC opened a new docket in order to resolve the issue regarding the proper methodology for the recovery of nuclear dry fuel storage costs. In October 2017 the LPSC approved the continued recovery of the nuclear dry fuel storage costs through the fuel adjustment clause, resolving the open issue in the audit.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit included a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through itsLouisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005from 2010 through 2009.2013. In March 2016January 2019 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $8.6 million,$900,000, plus interest, to customers and realignbased upon the recoveryimputation of approximately $12.7 million froma claim of vendor fault in servicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. In September 2016August 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed direct testimony challenging the basis for the LPSC staff filed testimony statingstaff’s recommended disallowance and providing an alternative calculation of replacement power costs should it be determined that it was no longer recommending a disallowance of $3.4 million of the $8.6 million discussed above, but otherwise maintained positions from its report. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement, which was approved by the LPSC in November 2016. The settlement recognized the dry cask storage recovery method issue, which was addressed in the separate proceeding approved by the LPSC in October 2017, provided for ais appropriate. Entergy Louisiana’s calculation would require no refund of $5 million, which was made to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers in December 2016, and resolved all other issues raised in the audit.customers.

76

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. No report of audit has been issued.


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. Discovery commencedIn 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 July 2015. No reportservicing its nuclear plant. Entergy Louisiana recorded a provision in the first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of audit has been issued.the audit. In August 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed direct testimony challenging the basis for the LPSC staff’s recommended disallowance and providing an alternative calculation of replacement power costs should it be determined that a disallowance is appropriate. Entergy Louisiana’s calculation would require a refund to customers of approximately $4.3 million, plus interest, as compared to the LPSC staff’s recommendation of $7.3 million, plus interest. Responsive testimony was filed by the LPSC staff and intervenors in September 2019; all parties either agreed with or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s alternative calculation of replacement power costs.


In November 2019 the pending LPSC proceedings for the 2010-2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana audits were consolidated to facilitate a settlement of both fuel audits. In December 2019 an unopposed settlement was reached that requires a refund to legacy Entergy Louisiana customers of approximately $2.3 million, including interest, and no refund to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. The LPSC approved the settlement in January 2020. A one-time refund was made in February 2020.

In June 2016 the LPSC staff providedissued notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings for the period 2014 through 2015 and purchased gas adjustment clause filings.filings for the period 2012 through 2015. In recognition of the business combination that occurred in 2015, the audit notice was issued to Entergy Louisiana and will also includeincludes a review of charges to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers prior to the business combination. The audit includesaudits include a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2014 through 2015 and charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2012 through 2015. Regarding the fuel adjustment clause filing, the LPSC staff issued a report in January 2021 that did not recommend a disallowance for the period 2014 through 2015 recoveries, but did propose various reporting requirements. Entergy Louisiana is currently reviewing the LPSC staff recommendations regarding reporting requirements. Regarding the purchased gas adjustment clause filings, the LPSC staff issued a report in February 2020 that did not recommend a disallowance for the period 2012 through 2015 recoveries. The LPSC issued an order in September 2020 accepting the LPSC staff’s report.

In May 2018 the LPSC staff provided notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause filings.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s
75

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2016 through 2017. In February 2020 the LPSC staff issued an audit report recommending a disallowance of approximately $29 thousand. Entergy Louisiana submitted a letter disputing the basis of the proposed disallowance but indicated that due to the amount at issue it would not oppose the recommended refund. The LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana submitted a joint report noting each party’s position on the substantive issues in the matter and recommending resolution of the matters. The LPSC issued an order in September 2020 resolving the matter and ordering a refund of approximately $29 thousand. In January 2021 the LPSC issued a notice closing the matter.

In March 2020 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2016 through 2019. Discovery commenced in March 2017. No report of audit has been issued.September 2020 and is ongoing.

Due to higher fuel costs for the operating month of January 2018 resulting in part from recent cold weather, higher Henry Hub prices, and an increase in total fuel and purchased power costs, Entergy Louisiana plans to cap the average fuel adjustment charge to be billed in March 2018 at $0.03060 per kWh and to defer billing of all fuel costs in excess of the capped amounts by including such costs in the over- or under-recovery account.


Entergy Mississippi


Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include an energy cost recovery rider that is adjusted annually to reflect accumulated over- or under-recoveries.  Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to annual audits conducted pursuant to the authority of the MPSC.

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015 Entergy Mississippi should file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. Pursuant to that order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor. Additionally, because Entergy Mississippi’s projected over-recovery balance for the period ending January 31, 2016 was $68 million, in February 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed for another interim adjustment to the energy cost factor effective April 2016 to flow through to customers the projected over-recovery balance over a six-month period. That interim adjustment was approved by the MPSC in February 2016 effective for April 2016 bills.


In November 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included an over-recovery of less than $2 million as of September 30, 2016. In January 2017 the MPSC approved the annual factor effective with February 2017 bills. Also in January 2017 the MPSC certified to the Mississippi Legislature the audit reports of its independent auditors for the fuel year ending September 30, 2016. In its order, the MPSC expressly reserved the right to review and determine the recoverability of any and all purchased power expenditures made during fiscal year 2016. The MPSC hired independent auditors to conduct an annual operations audit and a financial audit. The independent auditors

77

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


issued their audit reports in December 2017. The audit reports included several recommendations for action by Entergy Mississippi but did not recommend any cost disallowances. In January 2018 the MPSC certified the audit reports to the Mississippi Legislature. In November 2017 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff separately engaged a consultant to review the September 2016 outage at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station and to review ongoing operations at Grand Gulf. This engagement continues, and subsequently, was expanded to include all outages at Grand Gulf that began in 2016. The review is currently in progress.occurred through 2019.


In November 2017, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included an under-recovery of approximately $61.5 million as of September 30, 2017. Entergy Mississippi proposed a two-tiered energy cost factor designed to promote overall rate stability throughout 2018 particularly during the summer months. In January 2018 the MPSC approved the proposed energy cost factors effective for February 2018 bills.


Mississippi Attorney General Complaint

The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation,In November 2018, Entergy Mississippi Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things, violationsfiled its annual redetermination of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breachthe annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of good faith and fair dealing, and requestingthe annual factor included an accounting and restitution.  The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under whichunder-recovery of approximately $57 million as of September 30, 2018. In January 2019 the MPSC approved the proposed energy cost factor effective for February 2019 bills.

In November 2019, Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippifiled its annual redetermination of the annual factor to meet electricity demand.  Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded.  In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi.  The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court.  In August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdictionbe applied under the Class Action Fairness Act.

energy cost recovery rider. The defendantcalculation included $39.6 million of prior over-recovery flowing back to customers beginning February 2020. Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act.  In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdictionMississippi’s balance in its deferred fuel account did not decrease as expected after implementation of the MPSC, and factual errorsnew factor. In an effort to assist customers during the COVID-19 pandemic, in May 2020, Entergy Mississippi requested an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider to credit approximately $50 million from the over-recovered balance in the Attorney General’s complaint.  deferred fuel account to customers over four consecutive billing months. The MPSC approved this interim adjustment in May 2020 effective for June through September 2020 bills.

In November 2020, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included an over-recovery of approximately $24.4 million as of September 2012 the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

30, 2020. In January 20142021 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general asMPSC approved the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds assertedproposed energy cost factor effective for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory appeal, which was also denied. In December 2015 the District Court ordered that the parties submit to the court undisputed and disputed facts that are material to the Entergy defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as supplemental briefs regarding the same. Those filings were made in January 2016.2021 bills.

In September 2016 the Attorney General filed a mandamus petition with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the Attorney General asked the Fifth Circuit to order the chief judge to reassign this case to another judge. In September 2016 the District Court denied the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Entergy companies filed a motion seeking to amend the District Court’s order denying the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and allowing an interlocutory appeal. In October 2016 the Fifth Circuit granted the Attorney General’s motion for writ of mandamus and directed the chief judge to assign the case to a new judge. The case was reassigned in October 2016. In January 2017 the District Court denied the Entergy companies’ motion to amend the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings. In June 2017 the District Court issued a case management order setting a trial date in November 2018. Discovery is currently in progress.


78
76

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Entergy New Orleans


Entergy New Orleans’s electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment tariff designed to reflect no more than targeted fuel and purchased power costs, adjusted by a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel and purchased power costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges.

Due to higher fuel costs associated in part with the extended Grand Gulf outage and the partially simultaneous Union Power Block 1 planned outage, for the December 2016, January 2017, and February 2017 billing months, the City Council authorized Entergy New Orleans to cap the fuel adjustment charge billed to customers at $0.035 per kWh and to defer billing of all fuel costs in excess of the capped amount by including such costs in the over- or under-recovery account.

Due to higher fuel costs for the operating month of January 2018 resulting in part from recent cold weather, higher Henry Hub prices, and an increase in total fuel and purchased power costs associated in part with certain plant outages, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to cap the fuel adjustment charge to be billed in March 2018 to non-transmission Entergy New Orleans legacy customers and Entergy New Orleans Algiers customers at $0.035323 per kWh and $0.025446 per kWh, respectively. Entergy New Orleans has also proposed to cap the fuel adjustment charge to be billed in March 2018 for Entergy New Orleans legacy transmission customers at $0.034609 per kWh and to defer billing of all fuel costs in excess of the capped amount by including such costs in the over- or under-recovery account.


Entergy Texas


Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including interest, not recovered in base rates.   Semi-annual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in fuel mix.  The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT.
In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from (i) applying $48.6 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period to Entergy Texas’s $8.7 million under-recovered fuel balance as of April 30, 2014 and (ii) netting that fuel balance against the $15.3 million bandwidth remedy payment that Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement these refunds for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014. Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015.   In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs.  In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied. In March 2016, Entergy Texas filed a complaint in Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas and a petition in the Travis County (State) District Court appealing the PUCT’s decision. The pending appeals did not stay the PUCT’s decision. In April 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to refund to customers approximately $56.2 million. The refund resulted from (i) $41.8 million of fuel cost recovery over-collections through February 2016, (ii) the $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments,

79

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


discussed above, that Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs, and (iii) $3.5 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received related to 2006-2008 production costs. In June 2016, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement agreement that added additional over-recovered fuel costs for the months of March and April 2016. The settlement resulted in a $68 million refund. The ALJ approved the refund on an interim basis to be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order approving the interim refund. The federal appeal of the PUCT’s January 2016 decision was heard in December 2016, and the Federal District Court granted Entergy Texas’s requested relief. In January 2017 the PUCT and an intervenor filed petitions for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the Federal District Court ruling. Oral argument was held before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in February 2018, and a decision is pending. The State District Court appeal of the PUCT’s January 2016 decision also remains pending.

In July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. Under a recent PUCT rule change, a A fuel reconciliation is required to be filed at least once every three years and outside of a base rate case filing. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.77 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an over-recovery balance of approximately $19.3 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning Apri1 2016. Entergy Texas also noted, however, that the estimated $19.3 million over collection was being refunded to customers as a portion of the interim fuel refund beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016, discussed above. Entergy Texas also requested a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts and arrangements entered into or modified during the reconciliation period that have not been reviewed by the PUCT in a prior proceeding. In December 2016, Entergy Texas entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in a $6 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised and a refund of the over-recovery balance of $21 million as of November 30, 2016, to most customers beginning April 2017 through June 2017. This settlement was developed concurrently with the stipulation and settlement agreement in the 2016 transmission cost recovery factor rider amendment discussed below, and the terms and conditions in both settlements are interdependent. The fuel reconciliation settlement was approved by the PUCT in March 2017 and the refunds were made.

In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application for a fuel refund of approximately $30.7 million for the months of December 2016 through April 2017. For most customers, the refunds flowed through bills for the months of July 2017 through September 2017. The fuel refund was approved by the PUCT in August 2017.


In December 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application for a fuel refund of approximately $30.5 million for the months of May 2017 through October 2017. Also in December 2017, the PUCT’s ALJ approved the refund on an interim basis. For most customers, the refunds flowed through bills beginningfrom January 2018 and will continue through March 2018. A final decisionThe fuel refund was approved by the PUCT in this matter remains pending.March 2018.

In September 2019, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2016 through March 2019. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.6 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an under-recovery balance of approximately $25.8 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2019. In March 2020 an intervenor filed testimony proposing that the PUCT disallow: (1) $2 million in replacement power costs associated with generation outages during the reconciliation period; and (2) $24.4 million associated with the operation of the Spindletop natural gas storage facility during the reconciliation period.  In April 2020, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony refuting all points raised by the intervenor.  In June 2020 the parties filed a stipulation and settlement agreement, which included a $1.2 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised by any party. The PUCT approved the settlement in August 2020.

In July 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to implement an interim fuel refund of $25.5 million, including interest. Entergy Texas proposes that the interim fuel refund be implemented beginning with the first August 2020 billing cycle over a three-month period for smaller customers and in a lump sum amount in the billing month of August 2020 for transmission-level customers. The interim fuel refund was approved in July 2020, and Entergy Texas began refunds in August 2020.

In February 2021, Entergy Texas filed an application to implement a fuel refund for a cumulative over-recovery of approximately $75 million that is primarily attributable to settlements received by Entergy Texas from MISO related to Hurricane Laura. Entergy Texas planned to issue the refund over the period of March through August 2021. On February 22, 2021, Entergy Texas filed a motion to abate its fuel refund proceeding to assess how the February 2021 winter storm impacted Entergy Texas’s fuel over-recovery position.

77

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Retail Rate Proceedings


Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas)


Retail Rates


2015 Base Rate Filing
In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a forward test year formula rate plan pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In September 2015 the APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors

80

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposed a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a +/- 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity. A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition in March 2016 of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for a base purchase price of $237 million. The settlement agreement also provided for amortization over a 10-year period of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance. A settlement hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that reduced the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The settling parties agreed to the APSC modifications in February 2016. The new rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. In March 2016, Entergy Arkansas made a compliance filing regarding the new rates that included an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. The interim base rate adjustment surcharge was designed to recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016.

20162018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2016,2018, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 20162018 formula rate plan filing showingto set its formula rate for the 2019 calendar year. The filing showed Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 20172019 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. TheAdditionally, the filing requested a $67.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. In October 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed withincluded the APSC revisedfirst netting adjustment under the current formula rate plan attachments with an updated request for a $54.4 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors, as well as three additional adjustments identified as appropriate by Entergy Arkansas. In November 2016 a hearing was held andhistorical test year 2017, reflecting the APSC issued an order directing the parties to brief certain issues. In December 2016 the APSC approved the settlement agreement and the $54.4 million revenue requirement increase with approximately $25 million of the $54.4 million revenue requirement subject to possible future adjustment and refund to customers with interest. The APSC requested supplemental information for some of Entergy Arkansas’s requested nuclear expenditures. In December 2016 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’schange in formula rate plan compliance tariff,revenues associated with actual 2017 results when compared to the allowed rate of return on equity. The filing included a projected $73.4 millionrevenue deficiency for 2019 and a $95.6 million revenue deficiency for the rates became effective with2017 historical test year, for a total revenue requirement of $169 million for this filing. By operation of the first billing cycle of January 2017. In April 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion consented to by all parties requesting that it be permitted to submit the supplemental information requested by the APSC in conjunction with its 2017 formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a 4 percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to 4 percent of total revenue, which originally was subsequently made in July 2017 and is discussed below. In May 2017$65.4 million but was increased to $66.7 million based upon the APSC approved the joint motion and proposal to review Entergy Arkansas’s supplemental information on a concurrent schedule with the 2017 formula rate plan filing.staff’s updated calculation of 2018 revenue. In October 2017,2018, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motionmotions to approve a unanimouspartial settlement agreement resolving allas to certain factual issues inand agreed to brief contested legal issues. In November 2018 the docketAPSC held a hearing and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs.was briefed on a contested legal issue. In December 20172018 the APSC issued a decision related to the initial legal brief, approved the partial settlement agreement and recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs.

2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2017 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2018 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth.  The filing projected a $129.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%.  Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint and the projected annual revenue requirement increase exceeded the four percent, resulting in a proposed increase for the 2017 formula rate plan of $70.9 million. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC revised formula rate plan attachments that projected a $126.2 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors. The revised formula rate plan filing included a proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase based on a revision to the four percent constraint calculation. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and

81

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. In December 2017 the APSC approved the settlement agreement and the $71.1$66.7 million revenue requirement increase, as well as Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan, with updated rates going into effect for the first billing cycle of January 2019.

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.  In October 2019 other parties in the proceeding filed their errors and objections requesting certain adjustments to Entergy Arkansas’s filing that would reduce or eliminate Entergy Arkansas’s proposed revenue change. Entergy Arkansas filed its response addressing the requested adjustments in October 2019. In its response, Entergy Arkansas accepted certain of the adjustments recommended by the General Staff of the APSC that would reduce the proposed formula rate plan rider revenue change to $14 million. Entergy Arkansas disputed the remaining adjustments proposed by the parties. In October 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed a unanimous settlement agreement with the other parties in the proceeding seeking APSC approval of a revised total formula rate plan rider revenue change of $10.1 million. In its July 2019 formula rate plan filing, Entergy Arkansas proposed to recover an $11.2 million regulatory asset, amortized over five years, associated with specific costs related to the potential construction of scrubbers at the White Bluff plant. Although Entergy Arkansas does not concede that the regulatory asset lacks merit, for purposes of reaching a settlement on the total formula rate plan rider amount, Entergy Arkansas agreed not to include the White Bluff scrubber regulatory asset cost in the 2019 formula rate plan filing or future filings. Entergy Arkansas recorded a write-off in 2019 of the $11.2 million White Bluff scrubber regulatory asset. In December 2019 the APSC approved the settlement as being
78

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

in the public interest and approved Entergy Arkansas’s compliance tariff and the rates became effective with the first billing cycle of January 2018.2020.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2020 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2021 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2021, as amended through subsequent filings in the proceeding, and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2019. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 projected year is 8.22% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $64.3 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2019 historical year was 9.07% resulting in a $23.9 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2021 projected year and 2019 historical year netting adjustment was $88.2 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a 4 percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to $74.3 million. In October 2020 other parties in the proceeding filed their errors and objections recommending certain adjustments, and Entergy Arkansas filed responsive testimony disputing these adjustments. As part of the formula rate plan tariff the calculation for the revenue constraint was updated based on actual revenues which had the effect of reducing the initially-proposed $74.3 million revenue requirement increase to $72.6 million. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC a unanimous settlement agreement reached with the other parties that resolved all but one issue. As a result of the settlement agreement, Entergy Arkansas’s requested revenue increase was $68.4 million, including a $44.5 million increase for the projected 2021 year and a $23.9 million netting adjustment. The remaining issue litigated concerned the methodology used to calculate the netting adjustment within the formula rate plan. In December 2020 the APSC issued an order rejecting the netting adjustment method used by Entergy Arkansas. Applying the approach ordered by the APSC changed the netting adjustment for the 2019 historical year from a $23.9 million deficiency to $43.5 million excess. Overall, the decision reduced Entergy Arkansas’s revenue adjustment for 2021 to $1 million. In December 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing of the APSC’s decision, and in January 2021 the APSC granted further consideration of Entergy Arkansas’s petition. Based on the progress of the proceeding to date, in December 2020, Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory liability of $43.5 million to reflect the netting adjustment for 2019, as included in the APSC’s December 2020 order, which would be returned to customers in 2021. Also with the formula rate plan filing, Entergy Arkansas is requesting an extension of the formula rate plan rider for a second five-year term. Decisions by the APSC on the netting adjustment rehearing and the extension are expected in March 2021.

COVID-19 Orders

In April 2020, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the APSC issued an order requiring utilities, to the extent they had not already done so, to suspend service disconnections during the remaining pendency of the Arkansas Governor’s emergency declaration or until the APSC rescinds the directive. The order also authorizes utilities to establish a regulatory asset to record costs resulting from the suspension of service disconnections, directs that in future proceedings the APSC will consider whether the request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, and requires utilities to track and report the costs and any savings directly attributable to suspension of disconnects. In May 2020 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas expanding deferred payment agreements to assist customers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Quarterly reporting began in August 2020 and the APSC ordered additional reporting in October 2020 regarding utilities’ transitional plans for ending the moratorium on service disconnects. In February 2021 the APSC issued an order finding that it is not in the public interest to immediately lift the moratorium on service disconnects, but to announce a target date of May 3, 2021. In March 2021 the APSC will issue an order either confirming the lifting of the moratorium on service disconnects or extending the moratorium. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of $10.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

79

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Internal Restructuring


In November 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy Arkansas to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. The restructuring is subject to regulatory review and approval by the APSC, the FERC, and the NRC. Entergy Arkansas also filed a notice with the Missouri Public Service Commission in December 2017 out of an abundance of caution, although Entergy Arkansas does not serve any retail customers in Missouri. If the APSC approves the restructuring by September 1, 2018, and the restructuring closes on or before December 1,In July 2018, Entergy Arkansas proposedfiled a settlement, reached by all parties in its applicationthe APSC proceeding, resolving all issues. The APSC approved the settlement agreement and restructuring in August 2018. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Entergy Arkansas will credit retail customers $66$39.6 million over six years, beginning in 2019. Entergy Arkansas also received the required FERC and NRC approvals.
In FebruaryNovember 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed supplemental testimony reducing the proposed retail customer credits to $39.6 million over six years. If the APSC, the FERC, and the NRC approvals are obtained, Entergy Arkansas expects the restructuring will be consummated on or before December 1, 2018.
It is currently contemplated that Entergy Arkansas would undertakeundertook a multi-step restructuring, which would includeincluding the following:
Entergy Arkansas, would redeemInc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $32.7 million, which includes call premiums, plus accumulated and unpaid dividends, if any.million.
Entergy Arkansas, would convertInc. converted from an Arkansas corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Arkansas, will allocateInc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Arkansas Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Arkansas Power), and Entergy Arkansas Power will assumeassumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Arkansas, will remainInc. remained in existence and holdheld the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power.
Entergy Arkansas, will contributeInc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Arkansas Power will beis a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Arkansas, will changeInc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Property, Inc., and Entergy Arkansas Power will then changechanged its name to Entergy Arkansas, LLC.

Upon the completion of the restructuring, Entergy Arkansas, LLC will holdholds substantially all of the assets, and will have assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas, may modify or supplement the steps to be taken to effectuate the restructuring.Inc. The transaction was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana)


Retail Rates - Electric


20142017 Formula Rate Plan Filing


In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint, formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue was required. The following adjustments were required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery

82

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


mechanism to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. See “Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination” below for further discussion of the business combination. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of this proceeding with no changes to rates already implemented.

2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2016,2018, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 20152017 calendar year operations. The 2017 test year evaluation report reflectedproduced an earned return on common equity of 9.07%. As such, no adjustment8.16%, due in large part to revenue-neutral realignments to other recovery mechanisms. Without these realignments, the evaluation report produces an earned return on equity of 9.88% and a resulting base rider formula rate plan revenue was required. The following otherincrease of $4.8 million. Excluding the Tax Act credits provided for by the tax reform adjustment mechanisms, total formula rate plan revenues were further increased by a total of $98 million as a result of the evaluation report due to adjustments however, were required underto the additional capacity and MISO cost recovery mechanisms of the formula rate plan: an increase in the legacy Entergy Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $14.2 million; a separate increase in legacy Entergy Louisiana revenue of $10 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; an increase in the legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $0.5 million; a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenue of $58.7 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement;plan, and an increase of $11 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2016, subject to refund. Following implementation of the as-filed rates in September 2016, there were several interim updates to Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan, including the one submitted in December 2016, reflecting implementation of the settlement of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project prudence review described below.transmission recovery mechanism. In June 2017 the LPSC staff andAugust 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed a joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of the May 2016 evaluation report, interim updates, and corresponding proceedings with no changes to rates already implemented.

Extension of MISO Cost Recovery Mechanism Rider

In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC a request to extend the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider provision of its formula rate plan. In March 2017 the LPSC staff submitted direct testimony generally supportive of a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism and the intervenor in the proceeding did not oppose an extension for this period of time. In July 2017 an uncontested joint stipulation authorizing a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider was approved.

2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed itssupplemental formula rate plan evaluation report for itsto reflect changes from the 2016 calendartest year operations. The evaluation report reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.84%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue was required. Adjustments, however, were required underproceedings, a decrease to the formula rate plan;transmission recovery mechanism to reflect lower actual capital additions, and a decrease to evaluation period expenses to reflect the 2016 formula rate plan evaluation report showedterms of a new power sales agreement. Based on the August 2018 update, Entergy Louisiana recognized a total decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $16.9 million, comprised$17.6 million. Results of a decrease in legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenuethe updated 2017 evaluation report filing were implemented with the September 2018 billing month subject to refund and review by the LPSC staff and intervenors. In accordance with the terms of $3.5 million, a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $9.7 million, and a decrease in incremental formula rate plan revenue of $3.7 million. Additionally, the formula rate plan, evaluation report called for a decrease of $40.5 million in the MISO cost recovery revenue requirement from the present level of $46.8 million to $6.3 million. Rates reflecting these adjustments were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2017, subject to refund. In September 20172018 the LPSC issued its report indicating that no changesstaff and intervenors submitted their responses to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report were required but reserved for several issues, including Entergy Louisiana’s September 2017 update to its formula rate plan evaluation report.

Formula Rate Plan Extension Request

In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with theand supplemental compliance updates. The LPSC seeking to extend its formula rate plan for three years (2017-2019) with limited modifications to its terms.  Those modifications include: a one-time resetting of

staff asserted objections/reservations
83
80

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



base rates to the midpoint of the band atregarding 1) Entergy Louisiana’s authorized return on equity of 9.95% for the 2017 test year; narrowing of the formulaproposed rate plan bandwidth from a total of 160 basis points to 80 basis points; and a forward-looking mechanism that would allow Entergy Louisiana to recover certain transmission-related costs contemporaneously with when those projects begin delivering benefits to customers.  Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC consider its request on an expedited basis, in an effort to maintain Entergy Louisiana’s current cycle for implementing rate adjustments i.e., September 2018, without the need for filing a full base rate case proceeding. Several parties have intervened in the proceeding and all parties have been participating in settlement discussions.

Waterford 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project

Following the completion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, the LPSC undertook a prudence review in connection with a filing made by Entergy Louisiana in April 2013 with regard to the following aspects of the replacement project: 1) project management; 2) cost controls; 3) success in achieving stated objectives; 4) the costs of the replacement project; and 5) the outage length and replacement power costs. In July 2014 the LPSC staff filed testimony recommending potential project and replacement power cost disallowances of up to $71 million, citing a need for further explanation or documentation from Entergy Louisiana.  An intervenor filed testimony recommending disallowance of $141 million of incremental project costs, claiming the steam generator fabricator was imprudent.  Entergy Louisiana provided further documentation and explanation requested by the LPSC staff. An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2014. At the hearing the parties maintained the positions reflected in pre-filed testimony. Entergy Louisiana believed that the replacement steam generator costs were prudently incurred and applicable legal principles supported their recovery in rates.  Nevertheless, Entergy Louisiana recorded a write-off of $16 million of Waterford 3’s plant balance in December 2014 because of the uncertainty at the time associated with the resolutionreturn of excess accumulated deferred income taxes pursuant to the Tax Act and the treatment of accumulated deferred income taxes related to reductions of rate base; 2) Entergy Louisiana’s reservation regarding treatment of a regulatory asset related to certain special orders by the LPSC; and 3) test year expenses billed from Entergy Services to Entergy Louisiana. Intervenors also objected to Entergy Louisiana’s treatment of the prudence review. In December 2015regulatory asset related to certain special orders by the ALJ issued a proposed recommendation, which was subsequently finalized, concluding that Entergy Louisiana prudently managed the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, including the selection, use, and oversight of contractors, and could not reasonably have anticipated the damage to the steam generators. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana was liable for the conduct of its contractor and subcontractor and, therefore, recommended a disallowance of $67 million in capital costs. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana did not sufficiently justify the incurrence of $2 million in replacement power costs during the replacement outage. Although the ALJ’s recommendation hadLPSC. A procedural schedule has not yet been considered by the LPSC, after considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the ALJ recommendation, established to resolve these issues.

Entergy Louisiana recordedalso included in its filing a presentation of an initial proposal to combine the fourth quarter 2015 approximately $77 million in charges, including a $45 million asset write-off and a $32 million regulatory charge, to reflect that a portion of the assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project was no longer probable of recovery.legacy Entergy Louisiana maintained that the ALJ’s recommendation contained significant factual and legal errors.

In October 2016 the parties reached a settlement in this matter. The settlement was approved by the LPSC in December 2016. The settlement effectively provided for an agreed-upon disallowance of $67 million of plant, which had been previously written off by Entergy Louisiana, as discussed above. The refund to customers of approximately $71 million as a result of the settlement approved by the LPSC was made to customers in January 2017. Of the $71 million of refunds, $68 million was credited to customers through Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan, outside of sharing, and $3 million through its fuel adjustment clause. Entergy Louisiana had previously recorded a provision of $48 million for this refund. The previously-recorded provision included the cumulative revenues recorded through December 2016 related to the $67 million of disallowed plant. An additional regulatory charge of $23 million was recorded in fourth quarter 2016 to reflect the effects of the settlement. The settlement also provided that Entergy Louisiana could retain the value associated with potential service credits agreed to by the project contractor, to the extent they are realized in the future. Following a review by the parties, an unopposed joint report of proceedings was filed by the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana in May 2017 and the LPSC accepted the joint report of proceedings resolving the matter.


84

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


Ninemile 6

In July 2014,legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana andresidential rates, which combination, if approved, would be accomplished on a revenue-neutral basis intended not to affect the rates of other customer classes.

Commercial operation at J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) commenced in May 2019. In May 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation withupdate to its 2017 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the LPSC, which was subsequently approved, that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached. In late-December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimatedfirst-year revenue requirement of $26.8$109.5 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed.associated with the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station. The December 2014 estimate formed the basis ofresulting interim adjustment to rates implementedbecame effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. June 2019. In July 2015,June 2020, Entergy Louisiana submitted information to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. TestimonyIn August 2020 discovery commenced and a procedural schedule was established with a hearing in July 2021.

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. Resulting rates were implemented in September 2019, subject to refund.

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.

Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC staff generally supportedfiled its report of objections/reservations in accordance with the prudenceapplicable provisions of the managementformula rate plan. In its report the LPSC staff re-urged reservations with respect to the outstanding issues from the 2017 test year formula rate plan filing and disputed the inclusion of the projectcertain affiliate costs for test years 2017 and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project.2018. The LPSC staff had questionedobjected to Entergy Louisiana’s proposal to combine residential rates but proposed the warranty coverage for one elementsetting of a status conference to establish a procedural schedule to more fully address the issue. The LPSC staff also reserved its right to object to the treatment of the project. In October 2016 all parties agreedsale of Willow Glen reflected in the evaluation report and to a stipulation providing that 100%the August 2019 compliance update, which was made primarily to update the capital additions reflected in the formula rate plan’s transmission recovery mechanism, based on limited time to review it. Additionally, since the completion of Ninemile 6 construction costs was prudently incurred and is eligible for recovery from customers, but reservingcertain transmission projects, the LPSC’s rights to reviewLPSC staff issued supplemental data requests addressing the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s actions regarding one element of the project. This stipulation was approved by the LPSCexpenditures in January 2017.connection with those projects. Entergy Louisiana has responded to all such requests.


UnionCommercial operation at Lake Charles Power Station and Deactivation or Retirement Decisions forcommenced in March 2020. In March 2020, Entergy Louisiana Plants

In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an update to its application with the LPSC for approval of the acquisition and cost recovery of two power blocks of the Union Power Station for an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million per power block, subject2018 formula rate plan evaluation report to adjustments. In September 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana agreed to settlement terms with all parties for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s purchase of the two power blocks. In October 2015 the LPSC voted unanimously to approve the uncontested settlement which finds, among other things, that acquisition of Power Blocks 3 and 4 is in the public interest and, therefore, prudent. The business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana received regulatory approval and closed in October 2015 making Entergy Louisiana the named purchaser of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana acquired Power Blocks 3 and 4 of Union Power Station for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $474 million and implemented rates to collectinclude the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $108 million associated with the Lake Charles Power Station. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of March 2016.

As a term of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizing the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station, Entergy Louisiana agreed to make a filing with the LPSC to review its decisions to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1.  In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filing with the LPSC. Entergy Louisiana, LPSC staff, and intervenors participated in a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisions for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisions for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings on the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4.  No party contests the prudence of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4 or suggests reactivation of these units; however, issues have been raised related to Entergy Louisiana’s decision to give up its transmission service rights in MISO for Willow Glen 2 and 4 rather than placing the units into suspended status for the three-year term permitted by MISO. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2017 and post-hearing briefs were submitted in October 2017. A decision is expected in 2018.

Retail Rates - Gas

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted

April 2020.
85
81

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements







a joint settlement for implementation ofIn an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing foreffort to narrow the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next tenremaining issues in formula rate plan test years as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects,2017 and for a rider to recover the investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject2018, Entergy Louisiana provided notice to the following conditions, among others:parties in October 2020 that it was withdrawing its request to combine residential rates. Entergy Louisiana noted that the withdrawal is without prejudice to Entergy Louisiana’s right to seek to combine residential rates in a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of 10.45% as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.future proceeding.


20142019 Formula Rate Stabilization Plan Filing


In January 2015,May 2020, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gasformula rate stabilization plan evaluation report for theits 2019 calendar year operations. The 2019 test year ended September 30, 2014.  The filing showedevaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which resulted in9.66%. As such, no change to base rider formula rate plan revenue is required. Although base rider formula rate plan revenue will not change as a $706 thousandresult of this filing, overall formula rate increase.  In April 2015plan revenues will increase by approximately $103 million. This outcome is driven by the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results,removal of prior year credits associated with the sale of the Willow Glen Power Station and an additional recommendation that did not affectincrease in the results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustmentstransmission recovery mechanism. Also contributing to the overall change is an increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%.in legacy formula rate plan revenue requirements driven by legacy Entergy Louisiana capacity cost true-ups and higher annualized legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana acceptedrevenues due to higher billing determinants, offset by reductions in MISO cost recovery mechanism and tax reform adjustment mechanism revenue requirements. In August 2020 the LPSC staff’s recommendationsstaff submitted a list of items for which it needs additional information to confirm the accuracy and compliance of the 2019 test year evaluation report. The LPSC staff objected to a proposed revenue increaseneutral adjustment regarding a certain rider as being beyond the scope of $688 thousand waspermitted formula rate plan adjustments. Rates reflected in the May 2020 filing, with the exception of the revenue neutral rider adjustment, and as updated in an August 2020 filing, were implemented in September 2020, subject to refund. Entergy Louisiana is in the process of providing additional information and details on the May 2020 filing as requested by the LPSC staff.

In November 2020, Entergy Louisiana accepted ownership of the Washington Parish Energy Center and filed an update to its 2019 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $35 million associated with the Washington Parish Energy Center. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of May 2015.December 2020. In January 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2019 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the implementation of a scheduled step-up in its nuclear decommissioning revenue requirement and a true-up for under-collections of nuclear decommissioning expenses. The total rate adjustment would increase formula rate plan revenues by approximately $1.2 million. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of February 2021.


2015Request for Extension and Modification of Formula Rate Stabilization Plan Filing


In January 2016,May 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gasapplication for authority to extend its formula rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earnedplan. In its application, Entergy Louisiana seeks to maintain a 9.8% return on common equity, with a bandwidth of 10.22%, which is within60 basis points above and below the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. In March 2016 the LPSC staff issued its report stating that the 2015 gas rate stabilization plan filing was in compliancemidpoint, with the exception of several issues that required additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff had reserved the right to further review. In July 2016 the parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed joint report and motion for entry of order accepting the report that indicated no outstanding issues remained in the filing.

In February 2016,a first-year midpoint reset. Entergy Louisiana filedalso seeks to maintain its existing additional capacity mechanism, tax reform adjustment mechanism, transmission recovery mechanism, and the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Entergy Louisiana also seeks to add a motion requesting to extend the term of the gas rate stabilization plandistribution cost recovery mechanism which operates in substantially similar form for an additional three-year term and included a request for sharingthe same manner as the transmission recovery mechanism, seeks to utilize end of non-jurisdictional compressed natural gas revenues. Following discovery and the filingperiod rate base to calculate cost of testimony by the LPSC staff, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC submitted a joint motion for hearing an uncontested stipulated settlement resolving the proceeding. A hearing on the stipulation was held in November 2016. The ALJ issued a report of proceedings that was presented with the parties’ stipulation to the LPSC for consideration. The stipulation approving Entergy Louisiana’s requested extension of the rate stabilization plan was approved by the LPSC in December 2016.

2016 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

In January 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2016. The filing of the evaluation report for test year 2016 reflected an earned return on common equity of 6.37%. As part of the original filing, pursuant to the extraordinary cost provision of the rate stabilization plan, Entergy Louisiana sought to recover approximately $1.5 million in deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred to restore service, and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. Entergy Louisiana requested to recover the prudently incurred August 2016 storm restoration costs over ten years, outsiderequests a deferral of the rate stabilization plan sharing provisions. As a result, Entergy Louisiana’s filing sought an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million. Following review of the filing, except for the proposed extraordinary cost recovery, the LPSC staff confirmed Entergy Louisiana’s filing was consistent with the principles and requirements of the rate stabilization plan. The extraordinary cost recovery request associated with the 2016 flood-related deferred operation and maintenancecertain expenses incurred for gas operationsoutside of right-of-way vegetation programs. Settlement discussions are ongoing.

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 stated in the notice of proceeding, the LPSC observed an increase in capital construction-related costs incurred by Entergy Services. Discovery was removed fromissued and included efforts to seek highly detailed information on a broad range of matters unrelated to the rate stabilization

scope of the audit. There has been no further activity in the investigation since May 2019.
86
82

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




plan pending LPSC consideration in a separate docket. COVID-19 Orders

In April 20172020 the LPSC approvedissued an order authorizing utilities to record as a joint reportregulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of proceedingsdisconnections and Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report reflecting a $1.2 million annual increase in revenuecollection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with rates implementedthe COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. The suspension of late fees and disconnects for non-pay was extended until the first billing cycle after July 16, 2020. In January 2021, Entergy Louisiana resumed disconnections for customers in all customer classes with past-due balances that have not made payment arrangements. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of May 2017.

In connectionDecember 31, 2020, Entergy Louisiana recorded a regulatory asset of $48.8 million for costs associated with the joint report of proceedings accepted by the LPSC, in May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application to initiate a separate proceeding to recover through the extraordinary cost provision of the gas rate stabilization plan the deferred operation and maintenance expenses of $1.4 million incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. The LPSC staff submitted its direct testimony in the proceeding recommending recovery of $0.9 million. Entergy Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony responding to the LPSC staff’s recommendation. The procedural schedule was suspended to allow the parties to engage in settlement negotiations, and in February 2018 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed settlement. If approved by the LPSC, the settlement would provide for Entergy Louisiana to recover, over ten years, the approximately $1.4 million in deferred operation and maintenance expense and related carrying charges. The settlement further provides for recovery to commence in May 2018.COVID-19 pandemic.

2017 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

In January 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for test year ended September 30, 2017.  The filing of the evaluation report for the test year 2017 reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.06%.  This earned return is below the earnings sharing band of the rate stabilization plan and results in a rate increase of $0.1 million.  Due to the enactment in late-December 2017 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Entergy Louisiana did not have adequate time to reflect the effects of this tax legislation in the rate stabilization plan.  As a result, Entergy Louisiana will file a supplement to the January 2018 evaluation report to reflect, among other things, a 21% federal corporate income tax rate.  Any rate change resulting from the revised rate stabilization plan will become effective in rates in May 2018.


Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi)


Retail Rates

2018 Formula Rate Plan FilingsFiling


In March 2016,2018, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2016 test year filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s projected earned return for the 2016 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing showed a $32.6 million rate increase was necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 9.96%, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. In June 2016 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s joint stipulation with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff. The joint stipulation provided for a total revenue increase of $23.7 million. The revenue increase includes a $19.4 million increase through the formula rate plan, resulting in a return on common equity point of adjustment of 10.07%. The revenue increase also includes $4.3 million in incremental ad valorem tax expenses to be collected through an updated ad valorem tax adjustment rider. The revenue increase and ad valorem tax adjustment rider were effective with the July 2016 bills.

In March 2017, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 20172018 test year filing and 20162017 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 20162017 calendar year and projected earned return for the 20172018 calendar year, in large part as a result of the lower federal corporate income tax rate effective in 2018, to be within the formula rate plan bandwidth, resulting in no change in rates. In June 2017,2018, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a stipulation that confirmed that Entergy Mississippi’s earned returns for both the 20162017 look-back filing and 20172018 test year were within the respective formula rate plan bandwidths. In June 20172018 the MPSC approved the stipulation, which resulted in no change in rates. See “Regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” above for additional discussion regarding the treatment of the effects of the lower federal corporate income tax rate.



Formula Rate Plan Revisions

In October 2018, Entergy Mississippi proposed revisions to its formula rate plan that would provide for a mechanism in the formula rate plan, the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, to recover the non-fuel related costs of additional owned capacity acquired by Entergy Mississippi, including the non-fuel annual ownership costs of the Choctaw Generating Station, as well as to allow similar cost recovery treatment for other future capacity acquisitions, such as the Sunflower Solar Facility, that are approved by the MPSC. In December 2019 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s proposed revisions to its formula rate plan to provide for an interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism to recover the $59 million first-year annual revenue requirement associated with the non-fuel ownership costs of the Choctaw Generating Station, which Entergy Mississippi began billing in January 2020. The MPSC must approve recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment for each new resource. In addition, the MPSC approved revisions to the formula rate plan which allows Entergy Mississippi to begin billing rate adjustments effective April 1 of the filing year on a temporary basis subject to refund or credit to customers, subject to final MPSC order. The MPSC also authorized Entergy Mississippi to remove vegetation management costs from the formula rate plan and recover these costs through the establishment of a vegetation management rider. Effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, Entergy Mississippi implemented a rider to recover $22 million in vegetation management costs.

2019 Formula Rate Plan Filing

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
87
83

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Retail Rates

See “Algiers Asset Transfer” below for discussion of the Algiers asset transfer. As a provision of the settlement agreement approved by the City Council in May 2015 providingformula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the Algiers asset transfer, it was agreed that, with limited exceptions, no action may2019 calendar year to be taken with respect to Entergy New Orleans’s base rates until rates are implemented from a base rate case that must be filed for its electric and gas operations in 2018. This provision eliminatedbelow the formula rate plan applicablebandwidth. The 2019 test year filing shows a $36.8 million rate increase is necessary to Algiers operations.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 limited exceptions included continued implementation2018 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 then-remaining two yearsdifference between the 2018 expected earned rate of return on rate base and an established performance-adjusted benchmark rate of return under the four-year phased-informula 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 May 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 Algiers areafirst billing cycle of July 2019.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2020 test year filing and certain exceptional cost increases or decreases2019 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2020 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2020 test year filing shows a $24.6 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 look-back filing compares actual 2019 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $7.3 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In accordance with the MPSC-approved revisions to the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2019 retail revenues, effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, subject to refund. In June 2020, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed that the 2020 test year filing showed that a $23.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2019 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 6.75% in calendar year 2019, which is within the look-back bandwidth. As a result, there is no change in formula rate plan revenues in the base revenue requirement. An additional provision2019 look-back filing. In June 2020 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2020. In the settlement agreement allowed for continuedJune 2020 order the MPSC directed Entergy Mississippi to submit revisions to its formula rate plan to realign recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the capacity andcosts from its energy from Ninemile 6 received by Entergy New Orleans under a power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana (Algiers PPA). The settlement authorized Entergy New Orleans to recover the remaining revenue requirement related to the Algiers PPA through base rates charged to Algiers customers. The settlement also provided for continued implementation of the Algiers MISO recovery rider.

In addition to the Algiers PPA, Entergy New Orleans has a separate power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana for 20% of the capacity and energy from Ninemile 6 (Ninemile PPA), which commenced operation in December 2014. Initially, recovery of the non-fuel costs associated with the Ninemile PPA was authorized through a special Ninemile 6 rider billed only to Entergy New Orleans customers outside of Algiers.

In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the purchase of Union Power Block 1, with an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million, subject to adjustments, and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs. In November 2015 the City Council issued written resolutions and an order approving an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and City Council advisors providing that the purchase of Union Power Block 1 and related assets by Entergy New Orleans is prudent and in the public interest. The City Council authorized expansion of the terms of the purchased power and capacity acquisitionefficiency cost recovery rider to recoverits formula rate plan. In November 2020 the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6,MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s revisions to its formula rate plan providing for the revenue requirementrealignment of energy efficiency costs to its formula rate plan, the deferral of energy efficiency expenditures into a regulatory asset, and the elimination of its energy efficiency cost recovery rider effective with the January 2022 billing cycle.

COVID-19 Orders

In March 2020 the MPSC issued an order suspending disconnections for a period of sixty days. The MPSC extended the order on disconnections through May 26, 2020. In April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with the purchase of Power Block 1COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the Union Power Station,prudently incurred incremental costs and a creditexpenses. In December 2020, Entergy Mississippi resumed disconnections to commercial, industrial, and governmental customers of $400 thousand monthly beginning June 2016 in recognition of the decrease in other operation and maintenance expenseswith past-due balances that would result with the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans purchased Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station for approximately $237 million and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. In July 2016, Entergy New Orleans and the City Council Utility Committee agreed to a temporary increase in the Michoud credit to customers to a total of $1.4 million monthly for August 2016 through December 2016.

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  The rate settlement provided an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provided a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs.have not made payment arrangements. In January 2015 the City Council approved funding2021, Entergy Mississippi resumed disconnecting service for the Energy Smart program from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program

residential
88
84

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



customers with past-due balances that have not made arrangements with the company. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19.2 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted (estimated to be June 2018) and when new rates from the anticipated 2018 combined rate case, which will include a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect (estimated to be August 2019). Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council approve a cost recovery mechanism prior to June 2018. In December 2017 the City Council approved an energy efficiency cost recovery rider as an interim funding mechanism for Energy Smart, subject to verification that no additional funding sources exist.


Internal Restructuring


In July 2016,March 2018, Entergy New OrleansMississippi filed an application with the City CouncilMPSC seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans, Inc.Mississippi to a new entity, which would ultimately be ownedheld by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. The restructuring was subject to regulatory review and approval by the City CouncilIn September 2018, Entergy Mississippi and the FERC.Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed a joint stipulation regarding the restructuring filing. In May 2017September 2018 the City Council adopted a resolutionMPSC issued an order accepting the stipulation in its entirety and approving the proposed internal restructuring pursuant to an agreement in principle with the City Council advisors and certain intervenors. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans would credit retail customers $10credits of $27 million in 2017, $1.4 million in the first quarter of the year after the transaction closes, and $117,500 each month in the second year after the transaction closes until such time as new base rates go into effect as a result of the anticipated 2018 base rate case. Entergy New Orleans began crediting retail customers in June 2017. In June 2017 the FERC approved the transaction and, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will provide additional credits to retail customers over six years, consisting of $5annual payments of $4.5 million in each offor the years 2018, 2019, and 2020.2019-2024. Entergy Mississippi also received the required FERC approval.


In November 2017, pursuant to the agreement in principle,2018, Entergy New OrleansMississippi undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:


Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock, at athe aggregate redemption price of approximately $21 million, which included a call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.$21.2 million.
Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. converted from a LouisianaMississippi corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New OrleansMississippi Power and Light, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power)Mississippi Power and Light), and Entergy New OrleansMississippi Power and Light assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.Mississippi Power and Light.
Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy New OrleansMississippi Power and Light to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New OrleansMississippi Power and Light is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.


In December 2017,2018, Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Group,Enterprises, Inc., and Entergy New OrleansMississippi Power and Light then changed its name to Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, LLC. Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.


In December 2018, Entergy Mississippi filed its notice of intent to implement the restructuring credit rider to allow Entergy Mississippi to return credits of $27 million to retail customers over six years. In January 2019 the MPSC approved the proposed restructuring credit adjustment factor, which is effective for bills rendered beginning February 2019.

Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans)

Retail Rates

Energy Efficiency

In December 2019, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2020 through December 2022. Entergy New Orleans proposed to recover the costs of the program through mechanisms previously approved by the City Council or through the energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which was approved in the 2018 combined rate case resolution. In January 2020 the City Council’s advisors recommended that, beginning with Program Year 10, the City Council allow Entergy New Orleans to earn a utility performance incentive of 7% of Energy Smart costs for each year in
85

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




which Entergy New Orleans achieves 100% of the City Council’s savings targets for Energy Smart. In February 2020 the City Council approved Entergy New Orleans’s application.

2018 Base Rate Case

In September 2018, Entergy New Orleans filed an electric and gas base rate case with the City Council. The filing requested a 10.5% return on equity for electric operations with opportunity to earn a 10.75% return on equity through a performance adder provision of the electric formula rate plan in subsequent years under a formula rate plan and requested a 10.75% return on equity for gas operations. The proposed electric rates in the revised filing reflect a net reduction of $20.3 million. The reduction in electric rates includes a base rate increase of $135.2 million, of which $131.5 million is associated with moving costs currently collected through fuel and other riders into base rates, plus a request for an advanced metering surcharge to recover $7.1 million associated with advanced metering infrastructure, offset by a net decrease of $31.1 million related to fuel and other riders. The filing also included a proposed gas rate decrease of $142 thousand. Entergy New Orleans’s rates reflected the inclusion of federal income tax reductions due to the Tax Act and the provisions of a previously-approved agreement in principle determining how the benefits of the Tax Act would flow. Entergy New Orleans included cost of service studies for electric and gas operations for the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 and the projected twelve months ending December 31, 2018. In addition, Entergy New Orleans included capital additions expected to be placed into service for the period through December 31, 2019. Entergy New Orleans based its request for a change in rates on the projected twelve months ending December 31, 2018.

The filing’s major provisions included: (1) a new electric rate structure, which realigns the revenue requirement associated with capacity and long-term service agreement expense from certain existing riders to base revenue, provides for the recovery of the cost of advanced metering infrastructure, and partially blends rates for Entergy New Orleans’s customers residing in Algiers with customers residing in the remainder of Orleans Parish through a three-year phase-in; (2) contemporaneous cost recovery riders for investments in energy efficiency/demand response, incremental changes in capacity/long-term service agreement costs, grid modernization investment, and gas infrastructure replacement investment; and (3) formula rate plans for both electric and gas operations. In February 2019 the City Council’s advisors and several intervenors filed testimony in response to Entergy New Orleans’s application. The City Council’s advisors recommended, among other things, overall rate reductions of approximately $33 million in electric rates and $3.8 million in gas rates. Certain intervenors recommended overall rate reductions of up to approximately $49 million in electric rates and $5 million in gas rates. An evidentiary hearing was held in June 2019, and the record and post-hearing briefs were submitted in July 2019.

In October 2019 the City Council’s Utility Committee approved a resolution for a change in electric and gas rates for consideration by the full City Council that included a 9.35% return on common equity, an equity ratio of the lesser of 50% or Entergy New Orleans’s actual equity ratio, and a total reduction in revenues that Entergy New Orleans initially estimated to be approximately $39 million ($36 million electric; $3 million gas). At its November 7, 2019 meeting, the full City Council approved the resolution that had previously been approved by the City Council’s Utility Committee. Based on the approved resolution, in the fourth quarter 2019 Entergy New Orleans recorded an accrual of $10 million that reflects the estimate of the revenue billed in 2019 to be refunded to customers in 2020 based on an August 2019 effective date for the rate decrease. Entergy New Orleans also recorded a total of $12 million in regulatory assets for rate case costs and information technology costs associated with integrating Algiers customers with Entergy New Orleans’s legacy system and records. Entergy New Orleans will also be allowed to recover $10 million of retired general plant costs over a 20-year period.

The resolution directed Entergy New Orleans to submit a compliance filing within 30 days of the date of the resolution to facilitate the eventual implementation of rates, including all necessary calculations and conforming rate schedules and riders. The electric formula rate plan rider includes, among other things, 1) a provision for forward-looking adjustments to include known and measurable changes realized up to 12 months after the evaluation period; 2) a decoupling mechanism; and 3) recognition that Entergy New Orleans is authorized to make an in-service adjustment to the formula rate plan to include the non-fuel cost of the New Orleans Power Station in
86

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

rates, unless the two pending appeals in the New Orleans Power Station proceeding have not concluded. Under this circumstance, Entergy New Orleans shall be permitted to defer the New Orleans Power Station non-fuel costs, including the cost of capital, until Entergy New Orleans commences non-fuel cost recovery. After taking into account the requirements for submission of the compliance filing, the total annual revenue requirement reduction required by the resolution was refined to approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; $3 million gas). In January 2020 the City Council’s advisors found that the rates calculated by Entergy New Orleans and reflected in the December 2019 compliance filing should be implemented, except with respect to the City Council-approved energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which rider calculation should take into account events to be determined by the City Council in the future. Also in response to the resolution, Entergy New Orleans filed timely a petition for appeal and judicial review and for stay of or injunctive relief alleging that the resolution is unlawful in failing to produce just and reasonable rates. A hearing on the requested injunction was scheduled in Civil District Court for February 2020, but by joint motion of the City Council and Entergy New Orleans, the Civil District Court issued an order for a limited remand to the City Council to consider a potential agreement in principle/stipulation at its February 20, 2020 meeting. On February 17, 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors. On February 20, 2020, the City Council voted to approve the proposed agreement in principle and issued a resolution modifying the required treatment of certain accumulated deferred income taxes. As a result of the agreement in principle, the total annual revenue requirement reduction will be approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; and $3 million gas). Entergy New Orleans fully implemented the new rates in April 2020. In January 2021, pursuant to the agreement in principle approved by the City Council in October 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed with Civil District Court a motion seeking to dismiss its petition for judicial review of the City Council’s resolution in the 2018 combined rate case.

Commercial operation of the New Orleans Power Station commenced in May 2020. In accordance with the City Council resolution issued in the 2018 base rate case proceeding, Entergy New Orleans had been deferring the New Orleans Power Station non-fuel costs pending the conclusion of the appellate proceedings. In October 2020 the Louisiana Supreme Court denied all writ applications relating to the New Orleans Power Station. With those denials, Entergy New Orleans began recovering New Orleans Power Station costs in rates in November 2020. As of December 31, 2020 the regulatory asset for the deferral of New Orleans Power Station non-fuel costs was $5 million. Entergy New Orleans is recovering the costs over a five-year period that began in November 2020. In December 2020 the Alliance for Affordable Energy and Sierra Club filed a joint motion with the City Council to institute a prudence review to investigate the costs of the New Orleans Power Station. On January 28, 2021, the City Council passed a resolution giving parties 30 days to respond to the motion. Entergy New Orleans plans to respond to the motion.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

Entergy New Orleans’s first annual filing under the three-year formula rate plan approved by the City Council in November 2019 was originally due to be filed in April 2020. The authorized return on equity under the approved three-year formula rate plan is 9.35% for both electric and gas operations. The City Council approved several extensions of the deadline to allow additional time to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the New Orleans community, Entergy New Orleans customers, and Entergy New Orleans itself. In October 2020 the City Council approved an agreement in principle filed by Entergy New Orleans that results in Entergy New Orleans foregoing its 2020 formula rate plan filing and shifting the three-year formula rate plan to filings in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Key provisions of the agreement in principle include: changing the lower of actual equity ratio or 50% equity ratio approved in the rate case to a hypothetical capital structure of 51% equity and 49% debt for the duration of the three-year formula rate plan; changing the 2% depreciation rate for the New Orleans Power Station approved in the rate case to 3%; retention of over-recovery of $2.2 million in rider revenues; recovery of $1.4 million of certain rate case expenses outside of the earnings band; recovery of the New Orleans Solar Station costs upon commercial operation; and Entergy New Orleans’s dismissal of its 2018 rate case appeal.

87

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




COVID-19 Orders

In March 2020, Entergy New Orleans voluntarily suspended customer disconnections for non-payment of utility bills through May 2020. Subsequently, the City Council ordered that the moratorium be extended to August 1, 2020. In May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. In January 2021, Entergy New Orleans resumed disconnecting service to commercial and small business customers with past-due balances that have not made payment arrangements. In February 2021 the City Council adopted a resolution suspending residential customer disconnections for non-payment of utility bills and suspending the assessment and accumulation of late fees on residential customers with past-due balances through May 15, 2021. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy New Orleans recorded a regulatory asset of $14.3 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

In June 2020 the City Council established the City Council Cares Program and directed Entergy New Orleans to use the approximately $7 million refund received from the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales FERC proceeding, currently being held in escrow, and approximately $15 million of non-securitized storm reserves to fund this program, which is intended to provide temporary bill relief to customers who become unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The program became effective July 1, 2020, and offers qualifying residential customers bill credits of $100 per month for up to four months, for a maximum of $400 in residential customer bill credits. As of December 31, 2020, credits of $3.4 million have been applied to customer bills under the City Council Cares Program.

Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas)


Retail Rates


20112018 Base Rate Case


In November 2011,May 2018, Entergy Texas filed a base rate case requestingwith the PUCT seeking an increase in base rates and rider rates of approximately $166 million, of which $48 million is associated with moving costs currently being collected through riders into base rates such that the total incremental revenue requirement increase is approximately $118 million. The base rate case was based on a $112 million12-month test year ending December 31, 2017. In addition, Entergy Texas included capital additions placed into service for the period of April 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017, as well as a post-test year adjustment to include capital additions placed in service by June 30, 2018.

In October 2018 the parties filed an unopposed settlement resolving all issues in the proceeding and a motion for interim rates effective for usage on and after October 17, 2018. The unopposed settlement reflects the following terms: a base rate increase reflectingof $53.2 million (net of costs realigned from riders and including updated depreciation rates), a 10.6% return$25 million refund to reflect the lower federal income tax rate applicable to Entergy Texas from January 25, 2018 through the date new rates are implemented, $6 million of capitalized skylining tree hazard costs will not be recovered from customers, $242.5 million of protected excess accumulated deferred income taxes, which includes a tax gross-up, will be returned to customers through base rates under the average rate assumption method over the lives of the associated assets, and $185.2 million of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes, which includes a tax gross-up, will be returned to customers through a rider. The unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes rider will include carrying charges and will be in effect over a period of 12 months for large customers and over a period of four years for other customers. The settlement also provides for the deferral of $24.5 million of costs associated with the remaining book value of the Neches and Sabine 2 plants, previously taken out of service, to be recovered over a ten-year period and the deferral of $20.5 million of costs associated with Hurricane Harvey to be recovered over a 12-year period, each beginning in October 2018. The settlement provides final resolution of all issues in the matter, including those related to the Tax Act. In October 2018 the ALJ granted the unopposed motion for interim rates to be effective for service rendered on common equity based on an adjusted June 2011 test year.  The rate case also proposed a purchased power recovery rider.  On January 12, 2012,or after October 17, 2018. In December 2018 the PUCT voted not to addressissued an order approving the purchased power recovery rider in the rate case, but the PUCT voted to set a baseline in the rate case proceeding that would be applicable if a purchasedunopposed settlement.


89
88

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider
power capacity rider is approved in a separate proceeding.  
In April 2012 the PUCT Staff filed direct testimony recommending a base rate increase of $66 million and a 9.6% return on common equity.  The PUCT Staff, however, subsequently filed a statement of position in the proceeding indicating that it was still evaluating the position it would ultimately take in the case regarding Entergy Texas’s recovery of purchased power capacity costs and Entergy Texas’s proposal to defer its MISO transition expenses.  In April 2012,March 2019, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony indicatingwith the PUCT a revised request forto set a $105new DCRF rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million base rate increase.  A hearing was heldannually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in late-April through early-May 2012.

distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. In September 20122019 the PUCT issued an order approving a $28 million rate increase,rates, which had been effective July 2012.  The order included a finding that “a return on common equity (ROE) of 9.80 percent will allow [Entergy Texas] a reasonable opportunity to earn a reasonable return on invested capital.”  The order also provided for increasesan interim basis since June 2019, at the level proposed in depreciation rates and the annual storm reserve accrual.  The order also reduced Entergy Texas’s proposed purchased power capacity costs, stating that they are not known and measurable; reduced Entergy Texas’s regulatory assets associated with Hurricane Rita; excluded from rate recovery capitalized financially-based incentive compensation; included $1.6 million of MISO transition expense in base rates; and reduced Entergy’s Texas’s fuel reconciliation recovery by $4 million because the PUCT disagreed with the line-loss factor used in the calculation.  After considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the PUCT order, Entergy Texas recorded in the third quarter 2012 an approximate $24 million charge to recognize that assets associated with Hurricane Rita, financially-based incentive compensation, and fuel recovery are no longer probable of recovery.  Entergy Texas believed that it was entitled to recover these prudently incurred costs, however, and it filed a motion for rehearing regarding these and several other issues in the PUCT’s order on October 4, 2012.  Several other parties also filed motions for rehearing of the PUCT’s order.  The PUCT subsequently denied rehearing of substantive issues.  Several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. A hearing was held in July 2014. application.

In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced above, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. In September 2017 the Texas Supreme Court denied the petitions for review.March 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a motion for rehearing of the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review. In January 2018 the Texas Supreme Court denied Entergy Texas’s motion for rehearing.

Distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filedrequest to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1Texas’s retail customers approximately $23.6 million annually, from retail customers.or $20.4 million in incremental annual DCRF revenue beyond Entergy Texas’s then-effective DCRF rider, based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019. In October 2015May and June 2020 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing,recommending reductions in part, Entergy Texas’s request. In November 2015, Entergy Texas and the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement and supporting documents. The settlement established an annual revenue requirement of $8.65approximately $0.3 million and $4.1 million. The parties briefed the contested issues in this matter and a proposal for decision was issued in September 2020 recommending a $4.1 million revenue reduction related to non-Advanced Metering System meters included in the DCRF calculation. The parties filed exceptions to the proposal for decision and replies to those exceptions in September 2020. In October 2020 the PUCT issued a final order approving a $16.3 million incremental annual DCRF revenue increase.

In October 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $26.3 million annually, or $6.8 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2020 and August 31, 2020. In February 2021 the administrative law judge with the State Office of Administrative Hearings approved Entergy Texas's agreed motion for interim rates, which will go into effect in March 2021. The administrative law judge also adopted a procedural schedule setting a hearing on the merits, if necessary, in April 2021.

Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider

In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to set a new 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 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 amendedcosts recovered through the DCRF rider,rider. In October 2019 the PUCT issued an order on a motion for rehearing, clarifying and affirming its prior order granting Entergy Texas’s application as filed. Also in October 2019 a second motion for rehearing was filed, and Entergy Texas filed a response in opposition to the motion. The second motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law. In December 2019, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers filed an appeal to the PUCT order in district court alleging that the PUCT erred in declining to apply a load growth adjustment.

In August 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the resulting rates effectivePUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The amended TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $19.4 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019, which is $16.7 million in incremental annual revenue above the $2.7 million approved in the prior pending TCRF proceeding. In January 2020 the PUCT issued an order approving an unopposed settlement providing for recovery of the requested revenue requirement. Entergy Texas implemented the amended rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after January 1, 2016. The PUCT approved the settlement agreement in February 2016.23, 2020.

In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application to amend its DCRF rider by increasing the total collection from $8.65 million to approximately $19 million. In July 2017, Entergy Texas, the PUCT, and the two other parties in the proceeding entered into an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in an amended DCRF annual revenue requirement of $18.3 million, with the resulting rates effective for usage no later than October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the PUCT issued its final order approving the unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. The amended DCRF rider rates became effective for usage on and after September 1, 2017.
Transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a TCRF rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances involving, among other things, MISO charges, vegetation management costs, and bad debt expenses


90
89

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




that would reduce the requested increase by approximately $2 million. In addition to those recommended disallowances, a number of parties recommended that Entergy Texas’s request be reduced by an additional $3.4 million to account for load growth since base rates were last set. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. In February 2016 a State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the PUCT disallow approximately $2 million from Entergy Texas’s $13 million request, but recommending that the PUCT not accept the load growth offset. In June 2016 the PUCT indicated that it would take up in a future rulemaking project the issue of whether a load growth adjustment should apply to a TCRF. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order generally accepting the proposal for decision but declining to adjust the TCRF baseline in two instances as recommended by the ALJ, which resulted in a total annual allowance of approximately $10.5 million. The PUCT also ordered its staff and Entergy Texas to track all spare autotransformer transfers going forward so that it could address the appropriate accounting treatment and prudence of such transfers in Entergy Texas’s next base rate case. Entergy Texas implemented the TCRF rider beginning with September 2016 bills.


In September 2016,October 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The proposed amended TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $29.5 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers. This amount includes thecustomers approximately $10.5$51 million annually, thator $31.6 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective TCRF rider based on its capital invested in transmission between July 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in March 2021. In February 2021, Entergy Texas is currently authorizedfiled an agreed motion to collect throughabate the TCRF rider, as discussed above. In December 2016, concurrent withprocedural schedule, noting that the 2016 fuel reconciliation stipulation and settlement agreement discussed above, Entergy Texas and the PUCTparties had reached a settlement agreeingin principle, and the administrative law judge granted the motion to abate.

COVID-19 Orders

In March 2020 the amended TCRFPUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of COVID-19. In future proceedings the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. In March 2020 the PUCT ordered a moratorium on disconnections for nonpayment for all customer classes, but, in April 2020, revised the disconnect moratorium to apply only to residential customers. The PUCT allowed the moratorium to expire on June 13, 2020, but on July 17, 2020, the PUCT re-established the disconnect moratorium for residential customers until August 31, 2020. In January 2021, Entergy Texas resumed disconnections for customers with past-due balances that have not made payment arrangements. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Texas recorded a regulatory asset of $12.9 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Generation Cost Recovery Rider

In October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider with an initial annual revenue requirement of $29.5approximately $91 million to begin recovering a return of and on its capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020. In December 2020, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement supporting a generation cost recovery rider with an annual revenue requirement of approximately $86 million. As discussed above,The settlement revenue requirement is based on a depreciation rate intended to fully depreciate Montgomery County Power Station over 38 years and the termsremoval of certain costs from Entergy Texas’s request.Under the settlement, Entergy Texas retains the right to propose a different depreciation rate and seek recovery of a majority of the two settlements are interdependent. Thecosts removed from its request in its next base rate proceeding. On January 14, 2021, the PUCT approved the generation cost recovery rider settlement rates on an interim basis and issued a final orderabated the proceeding. Within 60 days of Montgomery County Power Station being placed in March 2017.service on January 1, 2021, Entergy Texas implementedwill file to update its generation cost recovery rider to include investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020. The current estimated cost of Montgomery County Power Station, including transmission interconnection and network upgrades, is approximately $921 million. Of this investment, approximately $765 million is eligible to begin being recovered through the amended TCRF rider beginning with bills covering usage on and after March 20, 2017.generation cost recovery rider. Entergy Texas will address recovery of the remainder of its Montgomery County Power Station investment through other rate mechanisms.


Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Filings

In December 2020, Entergy Arkansas

In September 2016, Entergy ArkansasTexas filed an application seeking a finding from the APSC that Entergy Arkansas’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest. Entergy Arkansas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable networkamend its generation cost recovery rider to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Arkansas’s modernized power grid. The filing included an estimate of implementation costs for AMI of $208 million.The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, and Entergy Arkansas provided a cost benefit analysis showing thatreflect its AMI deployment is expected to produce a nominal net benefit to customers of $406 million. Entergy Arkansas also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters, which was approximately $57 million at December 31, 2015, that will be retired as partacquisition of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Arkansas proposed a 15-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment ofHardin County Peaking Facility, which is expected to beginclose in 2019. DeploymentApril 2021.The initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represent no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates to be established in Entergy Texas’ previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding.Once Entergy Texas has acquired the Hardin County Peaking Facility, its investment in the facility will be reflected in the updated filing to Entergy Texas’ application, which will be made within 60 days of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018. Entergy Arkansas proposed to include the AMI deployment costs and the quantified benefits in future formula rate plan filings, and the 2018 costs were approved in the 2017 formula rate plan filing. In June 2017 the APSC staff and Arkansas Attorney General filed direct testimony. The APSC staff generally supported Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment conditioned on various recommendations. The Arkansas Attorney General’s consultant primarily recommended denial of Entergy Arkansas’s application but alternatively suggested recommendations in the event the APSC approves Entergy Arkansas’s proposal. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in June 2017, substantially accepting the APSC staff’s recommendations. In August 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement. In October 2017 the APSC issued an order finding that Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment is in the public interest and approving the settlement agreement subject to a minor modification. Entergy Arkansas expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized over 15 years. Entergy Arkansas has begun discussions with the other parties to implement the items in the settlement agreement including pre-pay and time of use programs.acquisition’s closing.



91
90

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Entergy Louisiana

In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application seeking a finding from the LPSC that Entergy Louisiana’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. Entergy Louisiana proposed to deploy advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Louisiana’s modernized power grid. The filing included an estimate of implementation costs for AMI of $330 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, and Entergy Louisiana provided a cost/benefit analysis showing that its combined electric and gas AMI deployment is expected to produce a nominal net benefit to customers of $607 million. Entergy Louisiana also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $92 million at December 31, 2015, of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Louisiana proposed a 15-year useful life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. The communications network deployment is expected to begin by late-2018, after the necessary information technology infrastructure is in place. Entergy Louisiana proposed to recover the cost of AMI through the implementation of a customer charge, net of certain benefits, phased in over the period 2019 through 2022. The parties reached an uncontested stipulation permitting implementation of Entergy Louisiana’s proposed AMI system, with modifications to the proposed customer charge. In July 2017 the LPSC approved the stipulation. Entergy Louisiana expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized at current depreciation rates.

Entergy Mississippi

In November 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed an application seeking an order from the MPSC granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity and finding that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest. Entergy Mississippi proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; to design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and to implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Mississippi’s modernized power grid. The filing included an estimate of implementation costs for AMI of $132 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, and Entergy Mississippi provided a cost benefit analysis showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce a nominal benefit to customers of $496 million over a 15-year period, which when netted against the costs of AMI results in $183 million of net customer benefits. Entergy Mississippi also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $56 million at December 31, 2015, of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Mississippi proposed a 15-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019, subject to approval by the MPSC, with deployment of the communications network expected to begin in 2018. Entergy Mississippi proposed to include the AMI deployment costs and the quantified benefits in existing rate mechanisms, primarily through future formula rate plan filings and/or future energy cost recovery rider schedule re-determinations, as applicable. In May 2017 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi entered into and filed a joint stipulation supporting Entergy Mississippi’s filing, and the MPSC issued an order approving the filing without material changes, finding that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest and granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The MPSC order also confirmed that Entergy Mississippi shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates.

Entergy New Orleans

In October 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application seeking a finding from the City Council that Entergy New Orleans’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest.  Entergy New Orleans proposed to deploy advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems.  AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy New Orleans’s modernized power grid.  The filing included an estimate of implementation costs for AMI of $75 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, and Entergy New

92

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


Orleans provided a cost/benefit analysis showing that its combined electric and gas AMI deployment is expected to produce a nominal net benefit to customers of $101 million.  Entergy New Orleans also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $21 million at December 31, 2015, of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates.  Entergy New Orleans proposed a 15-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019.  Deployment of the information technology infrastructure began in 2017 and deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018.  Entergy New Orleans proposed to recover the cost of AMI through the implementation of a customer charge, net of certain benefits, phased in over the period 2019 through 2022.  The City Council’s advisors filed testimony in May 2017 recommending the adoption of AMI subject to certain modifications, including the denial of Entergy New Orleans’s proposed customer charge as a cost recovery mechanism. In January 2018 a settlement was reached between the City Council’s advisors and Entergy New Orleans. In February 2018 the City Council approved the settlement, which deferred cost recovery to the 2018 Entergy New Orleans rate case, but also stated that an adjustment for 2018-2019 AMI costs can be filed in the rate case and that, for all subsequent AMI costs, the mechanism to be approved in the 2018 rate case will allow for the timely recovery of such costs.

Entergy Texas

In April 2017 the Texas legislature enacted legislation that extends statutory support for AMI deployment to Entergy Texas and directs that if Entergy Texas elects to deploy AMI, it shall do so as rapidly as practicable. In July 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking an order from the PUCT approving Entergy Texas’s deployment of AMI. Entergy Texas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Texas’s modernized power grid. The filing included an estimate of implementation costs for AMI of $132 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, with Entergy Texas showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce nominal net operational cost savings to customers of $33 million. Entergy Texas also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $41 million at December 31, 2016, of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Texas proposed a seven-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. Entergy Texas also proposed a surcharge tariff to recover the reasonable and necessary costs it has and will incur under the deployment plan for the full deployment of advanced meters. Further, Entergy Texas sought approval of fees that would be charged to customers who choose to opt out of receiving service through an advanced meter and instead receive electric service with a non-standard meter. In October 2017, Entergy Texas and other parties entered into and filed an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement, permitting deployment of AMI with limited modifications. The PUCT approved the stipulation and settlement agreement in December 2017. Consistent with the approval, deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018. Entergy Texas expects to recover the remaining net book value of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized at current depreciation rates.

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC in September 2014 seeking authorization to undertake transactions that would result in the combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana into a single public utility. An uncontested stipulated settlement (stipulated settlement) was filed with the LPSC in July 2015. Through the stipulated settlement, the parties agreed to terms upon which to recommend that the LPSC find that the business combination was in the public interest. The stipulated settlement, which was either joined, or unopposed, by all parties to the LPSC proceeding, represented a compromise of stakeholder positions and was the result of an extensive period of analysis, discovery, and negotiation. The stipulated settlement provided $107 million in guaranteed customer benefits during the first nine years following the transaction’s close. Additionally, the combined company would honor the 2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana rate case settlements, including the commitments that (1) there would be no rate increase for legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers for the 2014 test year, and (2) through the 2016 test year formula rate plan, Entergy Louisiana (as a combined entity)

93

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


would not raise rates by more than $30 million, net of the $10 million rate increase included in the Entergy Louisiana legacy formula rate plan. The stipulated settlement also provided that Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana would be permitted to defer certain external costs that were incurred to achieve the business combination’s customer benefits. In 2015 deferrals of $16 million for these external costs were recorded, and they are being amortized over a 10-year period. The LPSC approved the business combination in August 2015.

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were combined into a single public utility. With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. The combination was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the customer credits resulting from the business combination.

Algiers Asset Transfer (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans)

In October 2014, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that supported the provision of service to Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $59.6 million, including final true-ups, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million.

System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings

Prior to its final termination in 2016, the Utility operating companies historically engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement.  Entergy Arkansas terminated its participation in the System Agreement in December 2013. Entergy Mississippi terminated its participation in the System Agreement in November 2015. The System Agreement terminated with respect to its remaining participants in August 2016.

Although the System Agreement has terminated, certain of the Utility operating companies’ retail regulators continue to pursue litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC and in federal courts.  The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and other matters.

In June 2005 the FERC issued a decision in System Agreement litigation that had been commenced by the LPSC, and essentially affirmed its decision in a December 2005 order on rehearing.  The decision included, among other things:

The FERC’s conclusion that the System Agreement no longer roughly equalizes total production costs among the Utility operating companies.
In order to reach rough production cost equalization, the FERC imposed a bandwidth remedy by which each company’s total annual production costs will have to be within +/- 11% of Entergy System average total annual production costs.
In calculating the production costs for this purpose under the FERC’s order, output from the Vidalia hydroelectric power plant will not reflect the actual Vidalia price for the year but is priced at that year’s average price paid by Entergy Louisiana for the exchange of electric energy under Service Schedule MSS-3 of the System Agreement, thereby reducing the amount of Vidalia costs reflected in the comparison of the Utility operating companies’ total production costs.
The remedy ordered by the FERC in 2005 required no refunds and became effective based on calendar year 2006 production costs and the first reallocation payments were made in 2007.

94

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


The FERC’s decision reallocated total production costs of the Utility operating companies whose relative total production costs expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average production costs are outside an upper or lower bandwidth.  This was accomplished by payments from Utility operating companies whose production costs were more than 11% below Entergy System average production costs to Utility operating companies whose production costs were more than the Entergy System average production cost, with payments going first to those Utility operating companies whose total production costs were farthest above the Entergy System average.

The LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers appealed the FERC’s December 2005 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Entergy and the City of New Orleans intervened in the various appeals.  The D.C. Circuit issued its decision in April 2008.  The D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC’s orders had failed to adequately explain both its conclusion that it was prohibited from ordering refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003 and its determination to implement the bandwidth remedy commencing on January 1, 2006, rather than June 1, 2005.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the FERC for further proceedings on those two issues.

In October 2011 the FERC issued an order addressing the D.C. Circuit remand on the two issues.  On the first issue, the FERC concluded that it did have the authority to order refunds, but decided that it would exercise its equitable discretion and not require refunds for the 20-month period from September 13, 2001 - May 2, 2003.  Because the ruling on refunds relied on findings in the interruptible load proceeding, which is discussed in a separate section below, the FERC concluded that this refund ruling will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rehearing requests in the interruptible load proceeding.  On the second issue, the FERC reversed its prior decision and ordered that the prospective bandwidth remedy begin on June 1, 2005 (the date of its initial order in the proceeding) rather than January 1, 2006, as it had previously ordered.  Pursuant to the October 2011 order, Entergy was required to calculate bandwidth payments for the period June - December 2005 utilizing the bandwidth formula tariff prescribed by the FERC that was filed in a December 2006 compliance filing and accepted by the FERC in an April 2007 order.  

In March 2015, in light of a December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on refund issues and an initial brief addressing refund issues. The initial brief argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in this proceeding. In October 2015 the FERC issued three orders related to the commencement of the remedy on June 1, 2005 and the inclusion of interest for the period June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Specifically, the FERC rejected Entergy’s request for rehearing of its decision to include interest for the seven-month period. The FERC also rejected Entergy’s request for rehearing of the order rejecting the compliance filing with regard to the issue of interest. Finally, the FERC set for hearing and settlement procedures the 2014 compliance filing that included the bandwidth calculation for the seven months June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. In setting the compliance filing for hearing, the FERC rejected the APSC’s protest that Entergy Arkansas should not be subject to the filing because Entergy Arkansas would be making the payments during a period following its exit from the System Agreement. In January 2018 the D.C.Circuit affirmed the FERC decision that Entergy Arkansas was subject to the filing.

In December 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC its compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s October 2011 order.  The APSC, the LPSC, the PUCT, and other parties intervened in the December 2011 compliance filing proceeding, and the APSC and the LPSC also filed protests. The filing shows the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:


95

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


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

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

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

In April and May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC an updated compliance filing that provides the payments and receipts among the Utility operating companies pursuant to the FERC’s February 2014 orders.  The filing shows the following net payments and receipts, including interest, among the Utility operating companies:
Payments (Receipts)
(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas$68
Entergy Louisiana($10)
Entergy Mississippi($11)
Entergy New Orleans$2
Entergy Texas($49)

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


96

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


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. The initial decision is pending before the FERC.

Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates

Each May from 2007 through 2016 Entergy filed with the FERC the rates to implement the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  These filings showed the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies were necessary to achieve rough production cost equalization as defined by the FERC’s orders:
 Payments (Receipts)
 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 (In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas
$252
 
$252
 
$390
 
$41
 
$77
 
$41
 
$—
 
$—
Entergy Louisiana
($211) 
($160) 
($247) 
($22) 
($12) 
($41) 
$—
 
$—
Entergy Mississippi
($41) 
($20) 
($24) 
($19) 
($40) 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
Entergy New Orleans
$—
 
($7) 
$—
 
$—
 
($25) 
$—
 
($15) 
($15)
Entergy Texas
($30) 
($65) 
($119) 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$15
 
$15

The Utility operating companies recorded accounts payable or accounts receivable to reflect the rough production cost equalization payments and receipts required to implement the FERC’s remedy.  When accounts payable were recorded, a corresponding regulatory asset was recorded for the right to collect the payments from customers. When accounts receivable were recorded, a corresponding regulatory liability was recorded for the obligations to pass the receipts on to customers.  No payments were required in 2016 or 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2015 production costs and 2014 production costs, respectively. The System Agreement terminated in August 2016.

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Texas recovered its 2013 rough production cost equalization payment over three years beginning April 2014. Entergy Texas included its 2014 rough production cost equalization payment as a component of an interim fuel refund made in 2014. Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from the FERC’s decision and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers, subject to specific circumstances that have caused trapped costs.

The following rough production cost equalization rate proceedings are still ongoing.

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:

97

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


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 refund calculation of the 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.

2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs

In May 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2011 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In July 2011 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2011, subject to refund. After an abeyance of the proceeding schedule, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011 rate filing with the 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2012 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2011 Production Costs

In May 2012, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2012 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.  Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.  In August 2012 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 2012, subject to refund. After an abeyance of the proceeding schedule, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2012 rate filing with the 2011, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2013 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2012 Production Costs

In May 2013, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2013 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments related to including the outcome of a related FERC proceeding in the 2013 cost equalization calculation. In August 2013 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2013 rates, effective June 1, 2013, subject to refund. After an abeyance of the proceeding schedule, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2013 rate filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures.

98

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

2014 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2013 Production Costs

In May 2014, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2014 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest. The City Council intervened and filed comments. In December 2014 the FERC issued an order accepting the 2014 rates, effective June 1, 2014, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and consolidated the 2014 rate filing with the 2011, 2012, and 2013 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. See discussion below regarding the consolidated settlement and hearing procedures in connection with this proceeding.

Consolidated 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Rate Filing Proceedings

As discussed above, in December 2014 the FERC consolidated the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 rate filings for settlement and hearing procedures. In May 2015, Entergy filed direct testimony in the consolidated rate filings and the LPSC filed direct testimony concerning its complaint proceeding that is consolidated with the rate filings, challenging certain components of the pending bandwidth calculations for prior years. Hearings occurred in November 2015, and the ALJ issued an initial decision in July 2016. In the initial decision, the ALJ generally agreed with Entergy’s bandwidth calculations with one exception on the accounting related to the Waterford 3 sale/leaseback. Briefs were filed in September 2016 and the proceeding is pending.

Utility Operating Company Termination of System Agreement Participation

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi ceased participating in the System Agreement effective December 18, 2013 and November 7, 2015, respectively. Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas terminated participation in the System Agreement on August 31, 2016, which resulted in the termination of the System Agreement in its entirety pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015.

In December 2013 the FERC set one issue for hearing involving whether and how the benefits associated with settlement with Union Pacific regarding certain coal delivery issues should be allocated among Entergy Arkansas and the other Utility operating companies post-termination of the System Agreement. In December 2014 a FERC ALJ issued an initial decision finding that Entergy Arkansas would realize benefits after December 18, 2013 from the 2008 settlement agreement between Entergy Services, Entergy Arkansas, and Union Pacific, related to certain coal delivery issues. The ALJ further found that all of the Utility operating companies should share in those benefits pursuant to a methodology proposed by the MPSC. The Utility operating companies and other parties to the proceeding filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions with the FERC challenging various aspects of the December 2014 initial decision. In March 2016 the FERC issued an opinion affirming the December 2014 initial decision with regard to the determination that there were benefits related to the Union Pacific settlement, which were realized post-Entergy Arkansas’s December 2013 withdrawal from the System Agreement, that should be shared with the other Utility operating companies utilizing the methodology proposed by the MPSC and trued-up to actual coal volumes purchased. In May 2016, Entergy made a compliance filing that provided the calculation of Union Pacific settlement benefits utilizing the methodology adopted by the initial decision, trued-up for the actual volumes of coal purchased. The payments were made in May 2016. In August 2016 the FERC issued an order accepting Entergy’s compliance filing. Also in August 2016 the APSC filed a petition for review of the FERC’s March 2016 and August 2016 orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Oral argument before the D.C. Circuit was held on the APSC’s petition in January 2018 and a decision is pending.

In connection with the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, the purchase power agreements, referred to as the jurisdictional separation plan PPAs, between Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana that were put in place for certain legacy gas units at the time of Entergy Gulf States’s separation into Entergy Texas and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana terminated effective with the System Agreement termination. Similarly, the purchase power agreement between Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas for the Calcasieu unit also terminated. In

99

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


March 2016, Entergy Services filed with the FERC the notices of termination. The jurisdictional separation plan PPAs were the means by which Entergy Texas received payment for its receivable associated with Entergy Louisiana’s Spindletop gas storage facility regulatory asset. As a result of the System Agreement termination settlement agreement, effective with the termination date, Entergy Texas no longer receives payments from Entergy Louisiana related to the Spindletop storage facility, which resulted in a write-off recorded in 2015 by Entergy Texas of $23.5 million ($15.3 million net-of-tax). Upon termination of the System Agreement, other purchase power agreements entered into under Service Schedule MSS-4 of the System Agreement were replaced with updated agreements under a FERC-jurisdictional tariff effective September 1, 2016.

Interruptible Load Proceeding

In April 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the LPSC’s appeal of the FERC’s March 2004 and April 2005 orders related to the treatment under the System Agreement of the Utility operating companies’ interruptible loads.  In its opinion the D.C. Circuit concluded that the FERC: (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing the Utility operating companies to phase-in the effects of the elimination of the interruptible load over a 12-month period of time; (2) failed to adequately explain why refunds could not be ordered under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act; and (3) exercised appropriately its discretion to defer addressing the cost of sulfur dioxide allowances until a later time.  The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FERC for a more considered determination on the issue of refunds.  The FERC issued its order on remand in September 2007, in which it directed Entergy to make a compliance filing removing all interruptible load from the computation of peak load responsibility commencing April 1, 2004 and to issue any necessary refunds to reflect this change.  In addition, the order directed the Utility operating companies to make refunds for the period May 1995 through July 1996.  In November 2007 the Utility operating companies filed a refund report describing the refunds to be issued pursuant to the FERC’s orders.  The LPSC filed a protest to the refund report in December 2007, and the Utility operating companies filed an answer to the protest in January 2008.  The refunds were made in October 2008 by the Utility operating companies that owed refunds to the Utility operating companies that were due refunds under the decision.  The APSC and the Utility operating companies appealed the FERC decisions to the D.C. Circuit.

Following the filing of petitioners’ initial briefs, the FERC filed a motion requesting the D.C. Circuit hold the appeal of the FERC’s decisions ordering refunds in the interruptible load proceeding in abeyance and remand the record to the FERC.  The D.C. Circuit granted the FERC’s unopposed motion in June 2009.  In December 2009 the FERC established a paper hearing to determine whether the FERC had the authority and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to order refunds resulting from changes in the treatment of interruptible load in the allocation of capacity costs by the Utility operating companies.  In August 2010 the FERC issued an order stating that it has the authority and refunds are appropriate.  The APSC, the MPSC, and Entergy requested rehearing of the FERC’s decision.  In June 2011 the FERC issued an order granting rehearing in part and denying rehearing in part, in which the FERC determined to invoke its discretion to deny refunds.  The FERC held that in this case where “the Entergy system as a whole collected the proper level of revenue, but, as was later established, incorrectly allocated peak load responsibility among the various Entergy operating companies….the Commission will apply here our usual practice in such cases, invoking our equitable discretion to not order refunds, notwithstanding our authority to do so.”  The LPSC has requested rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 decision.  In July 2011 the refunds made in the fourth quarter 2009 described above were reversed. In October 2011 the FERC issued an “Order Establishing Paper Hearing” inviting parties that oppose refunds to file briefs within 30 days addressing the LPSC’s argument that FERC precedent supports refunds under the circumstances present in this proceeding.  Parties that favor refunds were then invited to file reply briefs within 21 days of the date that the initial briefs were due.  

In September 2010 the FERC had issued an order setting the refund report filed in the proceeding in November 2007 for hearing and settlement judge procedures.  In May 2011, Entergy filed a settlement agreement that resolved all issues relating to the refund report set for hearing.  In June 2011 the settlement judge certified the settlement as uncontested.  The settlement agreement was approved by the FERC in September 2016.


100

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


Prior to the FERC’s June 2011 order on rehearing, Entergy Arkansas filed an application in November 2010 with the APSC for recovery of the refund that it paid.  The APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s application, and also denied Entergy Arkansas’s petition for rehearing.  If the FERC were to order Entergy Arkansas to pay refunds on rehearing in the interruptible load proceeding the APSC’s decision would trap FERC-approved costs at Entergy Arkansas with no regulatory-approved mechanism to recover them.  In August 2011, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas asking for a declaratory judgment that the rejection of Entergy Arkansas’s application by the APSC is preempted by the Federal Power Act.  The APSC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2012 the United States district court dismissed Entergy Arkansas’s complaint without prejudice stating that Entergy Arkansas’s claim is not ripe for adjudication and that Entergy Arkansas did not have standing to bring suit at this time.

In March 2013 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s request for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2011 order wherein the FERC concluded it would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in the interruptible load proceeding. Based on its review of the LPSC’s request for rehearing and the briefs filed as part of the paper hearing established in October 2011, the FERC affirmed its earlier ruling and declined to order refunds under the circumstances of the case. In May 2013 the LPSC filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking review of FERC prior orders in the interruptible load proceeding that concluded that the FERC would exercise its discretion and not order refunds in the proceeding. Oral argument was held on the appeal in the D.C. Circuit in September 2014. In December 2014 the D.C. Circuit issued an order on the LPSC’s appeal and remanded the case back to the FERC. The D.C. Circuit rejected the LPSC’s argument that there is a presumption in favor of refunds, but it held that the FERC had not adequately explained its decision to deny refunds and directed the FERC “to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another.” In March 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC a motion to establish a briefing schedule on remand and an initial brief on remand to address the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit. The initial brief on remand argued that the FERC, in response to the D.C. Circuit decision, should clarify its policy on refunds and find that refunds are not required in the interruptible load proceeding.

In April 2016 the FERC issued an order on remand that addressed the December 2014 decision by the D.C. Circuit in the interruptible load proceeding. The order on remand affirmed the FERC’s denial of refunds for the 15-month refund effective period. The FERC explained and clarified its policies regarding refunds and concluded that the evidence in the record demonstrated that the relevant equitable factors favored not requiring refunds in this case. The FERC also noted that, under Section 206(c) of the Federal Power Act, in a Section 206 proceeding involving two or more electric utility companies of a registered holding company system, the FERC may order refunds only if it determines the refunds would not cause the registered holding company to experience any reduction in revenues resulting from an inability of an electric utility company in the system to recover the resulting increase in costs. The FERC stated it was not able to find that the Entergy system would not experience a reduction in revenues if refunds were awarded in this proceeding, which further supported the denial of refunds. In May 2016 the LPSC filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2016 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s request for rehearing and reaffirming its denial of refunds for the 15-month refund effective period. The LPSC has appealed the April and September 2016 orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Oral argument before the D.C. Circuit was held before the D.C. Circuit in February 2018 and a decision is pending.
Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding


In June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources; (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity; and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.   The LPSC’s complaint challenged sales made beginning in 2002 and requested refunds.  In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint requesting that the FERC dismiss the complaint on the merits without hearing because the LPSC has failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the System Agreement and failed to produce any evidence of imprudent action by the Entergy System.  In their response,

101

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


the Utility operating companies explainedarguing among other things that the System Agreement clearly contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.  The FERC subsequently ordered a hearing in the proceeding.


The LPSC filed direct testimony in the proceeding alleging, among other things, (1) that Entergy violated the System Agreement by permitting Entergy Arkansas to make non-requirements sales to non-affiliated third parties rather than making such energy available to the other Utility operating companies’ customers; and (2) that over the period 2000 - 2009, these non-requirements sales caused harm to the Utility operating companies’ customers and these customers should be compensated for this harm by Entergy.  In subsequent testimony, the LPSC modified its original damages claim in favor of quantifying damages by re-running intra-system bills.  The Utility operating companies believe the LPSC’s allegations are without merit.  AAfter a hearing, in the matter was held in August 2010.

In December 2010 the ALJ issued an initial decision.decision in December 2010.  The ALJ found that the System Agreement allowed for Entergy Arkansas to make the sales to third parties but concluded that the sales should be accounted for in the same manner as joint account sales.  The ALJ concluded that “shareholders” should make refunds of the damages to the Utility operating companies, along with interest.  Entergy disagreed with several aspects of the ALJ’s initial decision and in January 2011 filed with the FERC exceptions to the decision.


The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith.  The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated with such opportunity sales as part of its load but provides a different allocation authority.  The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  Quantifying the effect of the FERC’s decision requires re-running intra-system bills for a ten-year period, and theThe FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to determine the calculation of the effects.  In July 2012, Entergy and the LPSC filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2012 decision. A hearing was held in May 2013 to quantify the effect of repricing the opportunity sales in accordance with the FERC’s June 2012 decision.

In August The hearing was held in May 2013 and the presiding judgeALJ issued an initial decision in the calculation proceeding. The initial decision concluded that the methodology proposed by the LPSC, rather than the methodologies proposed by Entergy or the FERC Staff, should be used to calculate the payments that Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The initial decision also concluded that the other System Agreement service schedules should not be adjusted and that payments by Entergy Arkansas should not be reflected in the rough production cost equalization bandwidth calculations for the applicable years. The initial decision recognized that the LPSC’s methodology would result in an inequitable windfall to the other Utility operating companies and, therefore, concluded that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%.August 2013. The LPSC, the APSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions. Entergy filed a brief on exceptions requesting that the FERC reverse the initial decision and a brief opposing certain exceptions taken by the LPSC and FERC staff.


In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denied Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirmed the FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service

102

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.


In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order
91

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order denying all of the remaining requests for rehearing of the April 2016 order. In November 2017, Entergy Services filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit of the FERC’s orders in the first two phases of the opportunity sales case. In December 2017 the D.C. Circuit granted Entergy Services’sServices’ request to hold the appeal in abeyance pending final resolution of the related proceeding still pending withbefore the FERC. In January 2018 the APSC and the LPSC filed separate petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit, and the D.C. Circuit consolidated the appeals with Entergy Services’s appeal and held all ofServices’ appeal.

The hearing required by the appeals in abeyance.

Pursuant to the procedural schedule established in the case, Entergy Services re-ran intra-system bills for the ten-year period 2000-2009 to quantify the effects of the FERC's ruling. In NovemberFERC’s April 2016 the LPSC submitted testimony disputing certain aspects of the calculations. A hearingorder was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision concluding that Entergy Arkansas should pay $86 million plus interestaddressing whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and whether to implement the other adjustments to the other Utility operating companies.calculation methodology. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties. The case is pending before the FERC. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing the initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order.


The effect of the FERC’s decisions thus far in the case would be that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. Because further proceedings will still occur in the case, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which includesincluded interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case, including its review of the July 2017 initial decision. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retailcompanies, and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Entergy Arkansas, therefore, recorded a deferred fuel regulatory asset in the first quarter 2016 of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.million. Following its assessment of the course of the proceedings, including the FERC’s denial of rehearing in November 2017 described above, in the fourth quarter 2017, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional liability of $35 million and a regulatory asset of $31 million. Because management currently expects

In October 2018 the FERC issued an order addressing the ALJ’s July 2017 initial decision. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision to recovercap the retail portionreduction in Entergy Arkansas’s payment to account for the increased bandwidth payments that Entergy Arkansas made to the other operating companies. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that Grand Gulf sales from January through September 2000 should be included in the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. The FERC affirmed on other grounds the ALJ’s rejection of the costs throughLPSC’s claim that certain joint account sales should be accounted for as part of the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. In November 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2018 decision. In December 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing. In January 2020 the LPSC appealed the December 2019 decision to the D.C. Circuit.

In December 2018, Entergy made a base rate proceeding or newly proposed rider,compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order. 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. Refunds and interest in the following amounts were paid by Entergy Arkansas to the other operating companies in December 2018:

 Total refunds including interest
Payment/(Receipt)
 (In Millions)
PrincipalInterestTotal
Entergy Arkansas$68$67$135
Entergy Louisiana($30)($29)($59)
Entergy Mississippi($18)($18)($36)
Entergy New Orleans($3)($4)($7)
Entergy Texas($17)($16)($33)

92

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

Entergy Arkansas previously recognized a regulatory asset is reflected as Other regulatory assetswith a balance of $116 million as of December 31, 2017.2018 for a portion of the payments due as a result of this proceeding.

ComplaintAs described above, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing was completed in September 2020 and oral argument was heard in December 2020.

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 November 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s complaint. The order concluded that the settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015 terminating the System Agreement barred the LPSC’s new complaint. In December 2019 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s November 2019 order, and in July 2020 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request for rehearing. In September 2020 the LPSC appealed to the D.C. Circuit the FERC’s orders dismissing the new opportunity sales complaint. In November 2020 the D.C. Circuit issued an order establishing that briefing will occur in January 2021 through April 2021.

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. In January 2020 the APSC adopted a procedural schedule with a hearing in April 2020. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion seeking to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s application alleging that the APSC, in a prior proceeding, ruled on the issues addressed in the application and determined that Entergy Arkansas’s requested relief violates the filed rate doctrine and the prohibition against retroactive ratemaking. Entergy Arkansas responded to the joint motion in February 2020 rebutting these arguments, including demonstrating that the claims in this proceeding differ substantially from those the APSC addressed previously and that the payment resulting from a FERC tariff violation for which Entergy Arkansas seeks retail cost recovery in this proceeding differs materially from the refunds resulting from a FERC tariff amendment that the APSC previously rejected on filed rate doctrine and the retroactive ratemaking grounds. In addition, in January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony.

In July 2020 the APSC issued a decision finding that Entergy Arkansas’s application is not in the public interest. The order also directed Entergy Arkansas to refund to its retail customers within 30 days of the order the FERC-determined over-collection of $13.7 million, plus interest, associated with a recalculated bandwidth remedy. In addition to these primary findings, the order also denied the Attorney General’s request for Entergy Arkansas to prepare a compliance filing detailing all of the retail impacts from the opportunity sales and denied a request by the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers to recalculate all costs using the revised responsibility ratio. Entergy Arkansas filed a motion for temporary stay of the 30-day requirement to allow Entergy Arkansas a reasonable opportunity to seek rehearing of the APSC order, but in July 2020 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for a stay and directed Entergy Arkansas to refund to its retail customers the component of the total FERC-determined opportunity sales payment that was associated with increased bandwidth remedy payments of $13.7 million, plus interest. The refunds were issued in the August 2020 billing cycle. While the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s stay request, Entergy Arkansas believes its actions were prudent and, therefore, the costs, including the $13.7 million, plus interest, are recoverable. In July 2020, Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the APSC
93

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




order, which rehearing was denied by the APSC in August 2020. In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of these payments. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint, to which Entergy Arkansas responded. Also in December 2020, Entergy Arkansas and the APSC held a pre-trial conference, and filed a report with the court in January 2021. The court scheduled a hearing for February 26, 2021 regarding issues addressed in the pre-trial conference report.

Complaints Against System Energy


Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

In January 2017 the APSC and MPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy. The complaint seeks a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Arkansas also sells some of its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Louisiana,

103

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under separate agreements. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%. , which was established in a rate proceeding that became final in July 2001.

The APSC and MPSC complaint alleges that the return on equity is unjust and unreasonable because current capital market and other considerations indicate that it is excessive. The complaint requests the FERC to institute proceedings to investigate the return on equity and establish a lower return on equity, and also requests that the FERC establish January 23, 2017 as a refund effective date. The complaint includes return on equity analysis that purports to establish that the range of reasonable return on equity for System Energy is between 8.37% and 8.67%. System Energy answered the complaint in February 2017 and disputes that a return on equity of 8.37% to 8.67% is just and reasonable. The LPSC and the City Council intervened in the proceeding expressing support for the complaint. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding. In September 2017 the FERC established a refund effective date of January 23, 2017 consolidated the return on equity complaint with the proceeding described in Unit Power Sales Agreement below, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. The parties have been unable to settle the return on equity issue and a FERC hearing judge was assigned in July 2018. The 15-month refund period in connection with the APSC/MPSC complaint expired on April 23, 2018.

In April 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy seeking an additional 15-month refund period.  The LPSC complaint requests similar relief from the FERC with respect to System Energy’s return on equity and also requests the FERC to investigate System Energy’s capital structure.  The APSC, MPSC, and City Council intervened in the proceeding, filed an answer expressing support for the complaint, and asked the FERC to consolidate this proceeding with the proceeding initiated by the complaint of the APSC and MPSC in January 2017. System Energy answered the LPSC complaint in May 2018 and also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. 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 27, 2018. The 15-month refund period in connection with the LPSC return on equity complaint expired on July 26, 2019.

The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The parties addressed 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 complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement proceedings 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
94

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

consolidated with the ongoing return on equity proceeding. The 15-month refund period in connection with the capital structure complaint was from September 24, 2018 to December 23, 2019.

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. 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 trial staff filed its direct and answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC trial staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.89% based on the application of FERC’s proposed methodology. The FERC trial 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 trial staff. Among other things, System Energy’s testimony rebutted arguments raised by the FERC trial 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.

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 capital structure complaint with the ongoing return on equity proceeding and set new procedural deadlines for the consolidated hearing.

In August 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed rebuttal testimony in the return on equity proceeding and direct and answering testimony relating to System Energy’s capital structure. The LPSC re-argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% for the first refund period and 7.97% for the second refund period. The APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.26% for the first refund period and 8.32% for the second refund period. With respect to capital structure, the LPSC proposes that the FERC establish a hypothetical capital structure for System Energy for ratemaking purposes. Specifically, the LPSC proposes that System Energy’s common equity ratio be set to Entergy Corporation’s equity ratio of 37% equity and 63% debt. In the alternative, the LPSC argues that the equity ratio should be no higher than 49%, the composite equity ratio of System Energy and the other Entergy operating companies who purchase under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The APSC and MPSC recommend that 35.98% be set as the common equity ratio for System Energy. As an alternative, the APSC and MPSC propose that System Energy’s common equity be set at 46.75% based on the median equity ratio of the proxy group for setting the return on equity.
95

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements





In September 2019 the FERC trial staff filed its rebuttal testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC trial staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.40% based on the application of the FERC’s proposed methodology and an updated proxy group. For the second refund period, based on the study period ending May 31, 2019, the FERC trial staff rebuttal testimony argues for a return on equity of 9.63%. In September 2019 the FERC trial staff also filed direct and answering testimony relating to System Energy’s capital structure. The FERC trial staff argues that the average capital structure of the proxy group used to develop System Energy’s return on equity should be used to establish the capital structure. Using this approach, the FERC trial staff calculates the average capital structure for its proposed proxy group of 46.74% common equity, and 53.26% debt.

In October 2019, System Energy filed answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s, the LPSC’s, and the APSC’s and MPSC’s arguments for the use of a hypothetical capital structure and arguing that the use of System Energy’s actual capital structure is just and reasonable.

In November 2019, in a proceeding that did not involve System Energy, the FERC issued an order addressing the methodology for determining the return on equity applicable to transmission owners in MISO. Thereafter, the procedural schedule in the System Energy proceeding was amended to allow the participants to file supplemental testimony addressing the order in the MISO transmission owner proceeding (Opinion No. 569).

In February 2020 the LPSC, the MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy.For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.44%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 8.41%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.22%.For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.89%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 8.01% may be appropriate; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 8.66%.

In April 2020, System Energy filed supplemental answering testimony addressing Opinion No. 569.System Energy argues that the Opinion No. 569 methodology is conceptually and analytically defective for purposes of establishing just and reasonable authorized return on equity determinations and proposes an alternative approach.As its primary recommendation, System Energy continues to support the return on equity determinations in its March 2019 testimony for the first refund period and its June 2019 testimony for the second refund period.Under the Opinion No. 569 methodology, System Energy calculates a “presumptively just and reasonable range” for the authorized return on equity for the first refund period of 8.57% to 9.52%, and for the second refund period of 8.28% to 9.11%.System Energy argues that these ranges are not just and reasonable results.Under its proposed alternative methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 10.26% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

In May 2020 the FERC issued an order on rehearing of Opinion No. 569 (Opinion No. 569-A).In June 2020 the procedural schedule in the System Energy proceeding was further revised in order to allow parties fail to comeaddress the Opinion No. 569-A methodology.Pursuant to the revised schedule, in June 2020, the LPSC, MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569-A and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy.For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, the LPSC argues for an agreement duringauthorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 9.24%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.49%.For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the
96

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

Opinion No. 569-A methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.78%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 9.15% may be appropriate if the second complaint is not dismissed; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.09% if the second complaint is not dismissed.

Pursuant to the revised procedural schedule, in July 2020, System Energy filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569-A.System Energy argues that strict application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology produces results inconsistent with investor requirements and does not provide a sound basis on which to evaluate System Energy’s authorized return on equity.As its primary recommendation, System Energy argues for the use of a methodology that incorporates four separate financial models, including the constant growth form of the discounted cash flow model and the empirical capital asset pricing model.Based on application of its recommended methodology, System Energy argues for an authorized return on equity of 10.12% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.Under the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 9.44% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

The parties and FERC trial staff filed final rounds of testimony in August 2020. The hearing before a FERC ALJ occurred in late-September through early-October 2020, post-hearing briefing took place in November and December 2020, and the initial decision is due in March 2021. System Energy recorded a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue

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. The complaint alleges that System Energy violated the filed rate and the FERC’s ratemaking and accounting requirements when it included in Unit Power Sales Agreement billings the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, and that System Energy is double-recovering costs by including both the lease payments and the capital additions in Unit Power Sales Agreement billings. The complaint also claims that System Energy was imprudent in entering into the sale-leaseback renewal because the Utility operating companies that purchase Grand Gulf’s output from System Energy could have obtained cheaper capacity and energy in the MISO markets. The complaint further alleges that System Energy violated various other reporting and accounting requirements and should have sought prior FERC approval of the lease renewal. The complaint seeks various forms of relief from the FERC. The complaint seeks refunds for capital addition costs for all years in which they were recorded in allegedly non-formula accounts or, alternatively, the disallowance of the return on equity for the capital additions in those years plus interest. The complaint also asks that the FERC disallow and refund the lease costs of the sale-leaseback renewal on grounds of imprudence, investigate System Energy’s treatment of a DOE litigation payment, and impose certain forward-looking procedural protections, including audit rights for retail regulators of the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rates. The APSC, MPSC, and City Council intervened in the proceeding.

In June 2018, System Energy and Entergy Services filed a motion to dismiss and an answer to the LPSC complaint denying that System Energy’s treatment of the sale-leaseback renewal and capital additions violated the terms of the filed rate or any other FERC ratemaking, accounting, or legal requirements or otherwise constituted double recovery. The response also argued that the complaint is inconsistent with a FERC-approved settlement proceedings,to which the LPSC is a prehearing conferenceparty and that explicitly authorizes System Energy to recover its lease payments. Finally, the response argued that both the capital additions and the sale-leaseback renewal were prudent investments and the LPSC complaint fails to justify any disallowance or refunds. The response also offered to submit formula rate protocols for the Unit Power Sales Agreement similar to the procedures used for reviewing transmission rates under the MISO tariff. In September 2018 the FERC issued an order setting the complaint for hearing and settlement proceedings. The FERC established a refund effective date of May 18, 2018.
97

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements





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 sought refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income tax associated with uncertain tax positions, and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, as well as interest on those amounts.

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony 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 costs over the 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.

In August 2019 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony seeking refunds for rate base reductions for liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The FERC trial staff also argued that System Energy recovered $32 million more than it should have in depreciation expense for capital additions. In September 2019, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s arguments for refunds, stating that the FERC trial staff’s position regarding depreciation rates for capital additions is not unreasonable, but explaining that any change in depreciation expense is only one element of a Unit Power Sales Agreement re-billing calculation. Adjustments to depreciation expense in any re-billing under the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate will also involve changes to accumulated depreciation, accumulated deferred income taxes, and other formula elements as needed. In October 2019 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony increasing the amount of refunds sought for liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC seeks approximately $512 million plus interest, which is approximately $191 million through December 31, 2020.  The FERC trial staff also filed rebuttal testimony in which it seeks refunds of a similar amount as the LPSC for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC testimony also argued that adjustments to depreciation rates should affect rate base on a prospective basis only.

A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019.In April 2020 the ALJ issued an initial decision.Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues.First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million.The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service.The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy.In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively.Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities.If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through December 31, 2020, is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approximately $110 million through December 31, 2020.The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward.Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections.If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through December 31, 2020.
98

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC.The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC.In June 2020, System Energy, the LPSC, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions, challenging several of the initial decision’s findings.System Energy’s brief on exceptions challenged the initial decision’s limitations on recovery of the lease renewal payments, its proposed rate base refund for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, and its proposal to asymmetrically treat interest on bill corrections for depreciation expense adjustments.The LPSC’s and the FERC trial staff’s briefs on exceptions each challenged the initial decision’s allowance for recovery of the cost of service associated with the lease renewal based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, its calculation of the remaining net book value of the leased assets, and the amount of the initial decision’s proposed rate base refund for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.The LPSC’s brief on exceptions also challenged the initial decision’s proposal that depreciation expense adjustments include retroactive adjustments to rate base and its finding that section 203 of the Federal Power Act did not apply to the lease renewal.The FERC trial staff’s brief on exceptions also challenged the initial decision’s finding that the FERC need not institute a formal investigation into System Energy’s tariff.In October 2020, System Energy, the LPSC, the MPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed briefs opposing exceptions. System Energy opposed the exceptions filed by the LPSC and the FERC trial staff. The LPSC, MPSC, APSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff opposed the exceptions filed by System Energy. Also in October 2020 the MPSC, APSC, and the City Council filed briefs adopting the exceptions of the LPSC and the FERC trial staff. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part.Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision.

In addition, in September 2020, the IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA) and Entergy executed it.The NOPA memorializes the IRS’s decision to adjust the 2015 consolidated federal income tax return of Entergy Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries, including System Energy, with regard to the uncertain decommissioning tax position.Pursuant to the audit resolution documented in the NOPA, the IRS allowed System Energy’s inclusion of $102 million of future nuclear decommissioning costs in System Energy’s cost of goods sold for the 2015 tax year, roughly 10% of the requested deduction, but disallowed the balance of the position. In September 2020, System Energy filed a motion to lodge the NOPA into the record in the FERC proceeding. In October 2020 the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed oppositions to System Energy’s motion. As a result of the NOPA issued by the IRS in September 2020, System Energy filed, in October 2020, a new Federal Power Act section 205 filing at FERC to establish an ongoing rate base credit for the accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the decommissioning uncertain tax position. On a prospective basis beginning with the October 2020 bill, System Energy proposes to include the accumulated deferred income taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position as a credit to rate base under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In November 2020 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a protest to the filing, and System Energy responded.

In November 2020 the IRS issued a Revenue Agent’s Report (RAR) for the 2014/2015 tax year and in December 2020 Entergy executed it. The RAR contained the same adjustment to the uncertain nuclear decommissioning tax position as that which the IRS had announced in the NOPA. In December 2020, System Energy filed a motion to lodge the RAR into the record in the FERC proceeding addressing the uncertain tax position rate base issue. In January 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a protest to the motion.

As a result of the RAR, in December 2020, System Energy filed amendments to its new Federal Power Act section 205 filings to establish an ongoing rate base credit for the accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the decommissioning uncertain tax position and to credit excess accumulated deferred income taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position. The amendments both propose the inclusion of the RAR as support for the filings. In December 2020 the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed a protest in response to the amendments, reiterating their prior objections to the filings. In February 2021 the FERC issued an
99

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




order accepting System Energy’s Federal Power Act section 205 filings subject to refund, setting them for hearing, and holding the hearing in abeyance.

In December 2020, System Energy filed a new Federal Power Act section 205 filing to provide a one-time, historical credit of $25.2 million for the accumulated deferred income taxes that would have been created by the decommissioning uncertain tax position if the IRS’s decision had been known in 2016. In January 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a protest to the filing.

LPSC Authorization of Additional Complaints

In May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC directive notes that the initial decision issued by the presiding ALJ in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback complaint proceeding did not address, for procedural reasons, certain rate issues raised by the LPSC and declined to order further investigation of rates charged by System Energy. The LPSC directive authorizes its staff to file complaints at the FERC “necessary to address these rate issues, to request a full investigation into the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf power, and to seek rate refund, rate reduction, and such other remedies as may be necessary and appropriate to protect Louisiana ratepayers.” The LPSC directive further stated that the LPSC has seen “information suggesting that the Grand Gulf plant has been significantly underperforming compared to other nuclear plants in the United States, has had several extended and unexplained outages, and has been plagued with serious safety concerns.” The LPSC expressed concern that the costs paid by Entergy Louisiana's retail customers may have been detrimentally impacted, and authorized “the filing of a FERC complaint to address these performance issues and to seek appropriate refund, rate reduction, and other remedies as may be appropriate.”

The first of the additional complaints was filed at the FERC by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council in September 2020. The new complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. Several of the filed rate allegations overlap with the previous complaints. The filed rate allegations not previously raised are that System Energy: failed to provide a rate base credit to customers for the “time value” of sale-leaseback lease payments collected from customers in advance of the time those payments were due to the owner-lessors; improperly included certain lease refinancing costs in rate base as prepayments; improperly included nuclear decommissioning outage costs in rate base; failed to include categories of accumulated deferred income taxes as a reduction to rate base; charged customers based on a higher equity ratio than would be appropriate due to excessive retained earnings; and did not correctly reflect money pool investments and imprudently invested cash into the money pool. The elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement that the complaint alleges are unjust and unreasonable include: incentive and executive compensation, lack of an equity re-opener, lobbying, and private airplane travel. The new complaint also requests a rate investigation into the Unit Power Sales Agreement and System Energy’s billing practices pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, including any issue relevant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement and its inputs. System Energy filed its answer opposing the new complaint in November 2020. In its answer, System Energy argued that all of the claims raised in the complaint should be dismissed and agreed that bill adjustment with respect to two discrete issues were justified.System Energy argued that dismissal is warranted because all claims fall into one or more of the following categories: the claims have been raised and are being litigated in another proceeding; the claims do not present a prima facie case and do not satisfy the threshold burden to establish a procedural schedulecomplaint proceeding; the claims are premised on a theory or request relief that is incompatible with federal law or FERC policy; the claims request relief that is inconsistent with the filed rate; the claims are barred or waived by the legal doctrine of laches; and/or the claims have been fully addressed and do not warrant further litigation. In December 2020, System Energy filed a bill adjustment report indicating that $3.4 million had been credited to customers in connection with the two discrete issues concerning the inclusion of certain accumulated deferred income taxes balances in rates.In January 2021 the
100

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

complainants filed a response to System Energy’s November 2020 answer, and in February 2021, System Energy filed a response to the complainant’s response.

The operational prudence-related complaint has not been filed as of this date, and the LPSC directive did not set a date for hearing proceedings.the filing.


Unit Power Sales Agreement


In August 2017, System Energy submitted to the FERC proposed amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. The filing proposes limited amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement to adopt (1) updated rates for use in calculating Grand Gulf plant depreciation and amortization expenses and (2) updated nuclear decommissioning cost annual revenue requirements, both of which are recovered through the Unit Power Sales Agreement rate formula. The proposed amendments would result in lower charges to the Utility operating companies that buy capacity and energy from System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The proposed changes arewere based on updated depreciation and nuclear decommissioning studies that take into account the renewal of Grand Gulf’s operating license for a term through November 1, 2044. System Energy requested that the FERC accept the amendments effective October 1, 2017.


In September 2017 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, subject to further proceedings to consider the justness and reasonableness of the amendments. Because the amendments proposeproposed a rate decrease, the FERC also initiated an investigation under Sectionsection 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine if the rate decrease should be lower than proposed. The FERC accepted the proposed amendments effective October 1, 2017, subject to refund pending the outcome of the further settlement and/or hearing proceedings, and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2017 with respect to the rate decrease. The FERC also consolidated the Unit Power Sales Agreement amendment proceedingIn June 2018, System Energy filed with the proceeding describedFERC an uncontested settlement relating to the updated depreciation rates and nuclear decommissioning cost annual revenue requirements. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order accepting the settlement. In the third quarter 2018, System Energy recorded a reduction in Complaint Against System Energy above,depreciation expense of approximately $26 million, representing the cumulative difference in depreciation expense resulting from the depreciation rates used from October 11, 2017 through September 30, 2018 and directed the parties to engagedepreciation rates included in the settlement proceedings before an ALJ. Iffiling accepted by the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings.FERC.


Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators


Entergy Louisiana


Hurricane Isaac


In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s service area.  The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages.  In June 2014 the LPSC authorized Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs.  Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation (LURC) and the Louisiana State Bond Commission.


104

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



In August 2014 the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA) issued $314.85 million in bonds under Louisiana Act 55.  From the $309 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $16 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $293 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana used the $293 million received from the LURC to acquire 2,935,152.69 Class C preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 7.5% annual distribution rate. Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2014, and the membership interests have a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership
101

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement. The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1.75 billion.


Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collects a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.


In the first quarter 2020, Entergy and the IRS agreed upon and settled on the treatment of funds received by Entergy Louisiana in conjunction with the Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac storm costs, which resulted in a net reduction of income tax expense of approximately $32 million. As a result of the settlement, the position was partially sustained and Entergy Louisiana recorded a reduction of income tax expense of approximately $58 million primarily due to the reversal of liabilities for uncertain tax positions in excess of the agreed-upon settlement. Entergy recorded an increase to income tax expense of $26 million primarily resulting from the reduction of the deferred tax asset, associated with utilization of the net operating loss as a result of the settlement. This adjustment recorded by Entergy also accounted for the tax rate change of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. As a result of the IRS settlement, Entergy Louisiana recorded a $29 million ($21 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to customers pursuant to the LPSC Hurricane Isaac Act 55 financing order.

Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike


In September 2008, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike caused catastrophic damage to Entergy Louisiana’s service territory.  In December 2009, Entergy Louisiana entered into a stipulation agreement with the LPSC staff regarding its storm costs.  In March and April 2010, Entergy Louisiana and other parties to the proceeding filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that included Entergy Louisiana’s proposal to utilize Act 55 financing, which included a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $43.3 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8.7 million for five years.  In April 2010 the LPSC approved the settlement and subsequently issued financing orders and a ratemaking order intended to facilitate the implementation of the Act 55 financings.  In June 2010 the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved the Act 55 financing. The settlement agreement allowed for an adjustment to the credits if there was a change in the applicable federal or state income tax rate. As a result of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, and the lowering of the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, the Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation regulatory liability related to Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike was reduced by $2.7 million, with a corresponding increase to Other regulatory credits on the income statement. The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed further in Note 3 to the financial statements.


In July 2010, the LCDA issued two series of bonds totaling $713.0 million under Act 55.  From the $702.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LCDA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $290 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $412.7 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana used $412.7 million to acquire 4,126,940.15 Class B preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 9% annual distribution rate. Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2010, and the membership interests have a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement.  The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion.


102

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA, and there is no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collects a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.

105

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita


In August and September 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to Entergy Louisiana’s service territory. In March 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LURC filed at the LPSC an application requesting that the LPSC grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy Louisiana storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55.  The Louisiana Act 55 financing is expected to produce additional customer benefits as compared to traditional securitization.  Entergy Louisiana also filed an application requesting LPSC approval for ancillary issues including the mechanism to flow charges and savings to customers via a storm cost offset rider.  In April 2008 the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (LPFA), which is the issuer of the bonds pursuant to the Act 55 financing, approved requests for the Act 55 financing.  Also in April 2008, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed with the LPSC an uncontested stipulated settlement that included Entergy Louisiana’s proposal under the Act 55 financing, which included a commitment to pass on to customers a minimum of $40 million of customer benefits through a prospective annual rate reduction of $8 million for five years.  The LPSC subsequently approved the settlement and issued two financing orders and one ratemaking order intended to facilitate implementation of the Act 55 financing.  In May 2008 the Louisiana State Bond Commission granted final approval of the Act 55 financing. The settlement agreement allowed for an adjustment to the credits if there was a change in the applicable federal or state income tax rate. As a result of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, and the lowering of the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, the Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation regulatory liability related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was reduced by $22.3 million, with a corresponding increase to Other regulatory credits on the income statement. The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed further in Note 3 to the financial statements.


In July 2008 the LPFA issued $687.7 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $679 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $152 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $527 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $545 million, including $17.8 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 5,449,861.85 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy, that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  In August 2008, the LPFA issued $278.4 million in bonds under the aforementioned Act 55.  From the $274.7 million of bond proceeds loaned by the LPFA to the LURC, the LURC deposited $87 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for Entergy Louisiana and transferred $187.7 million directly to Entergy Louisiana.  From the bond proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana from the LURC, Entergy Louisiana invested $189.4 million, including $1.7 million that was withdrawn from the restricted escrow account as approved by the April 16, 2008 LPSC orders, in exchange for 1,893,918.39 Class A preferred, non-voting, membership interest units of Entergy Holdings Company LLC that carry a 10% annual distribution rate.  Distributions are payable quarterly commencing on September 15, 2008 and have a liquidation price of $100 per unit.  The preferred membership interests are callable at the option of Entergy Holdings Company LLC after ten years under the terms of the LLC agreement.  The terms of the membership interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Holdings Company LLC is subject, including the requirement to maintain a net worth of at least $1 billion.  In February 2012, Entergy Louisiana sold 500,000 of its Class A preferred membership units

The bonds were repaid in Entergy Holdings Company LLC, a wholly-owned Entergy subsidiary, to a third party in exchange for $51 million plus accrued but unpaid distributions on the units.  The 500,000 preferred membership units are mandatorily redeemable in January 2112.

2018. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana dodid not report the bonds issued by the LPFA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LPFA, and there iswas no recourse against Entergy or Entergy Louisiana in the event of a bond default.  To service the bonds, Entergy Louisiana collectscollected a system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remitsremitted the collections to the bond indenture trustee.  Entergy
103

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




and Entergy Louisiana dodid not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana iswas merely acting as the billing and collection agent for the state.


106

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Entergy Mississippi


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 April 30, 2016, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance washas been less than $10 million thereforesince May 2019, and Entergy Mississippi resumedhas been billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with June 2016 bills. As of September 30, 2016, however, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance again exceeded $15 million. Accordingly the storm damage provision was reset to zero beginning with November 2016 bills. As ofsince July 31, 2017, the balance in Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision was again less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with September 2017 bills.2019.


Entergy New Orleans

In August 2012, Hurricane Isaac caused extensive damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. In January 2015 the City Council issued a resolution approving the terms of a joint agreement in principle filed by Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Louisiana, and the City Council Advisors determining, among other things, that Entergy New Orleans’s prudently-incurred storm recovery costs were $49.3 million, of which $31.7 million, net of reimbursements from the storm reserve escrow account, remained recoverable from Entergy New Orleans’s electric customers. The resolution also directed Entergy New Orleans to file an application to securitize the unrecovered City Council-approved storm recovery costs of $31.7 million pursuant to the Louisiana Electric Utility Storm Recovery Securitization Act (Louisiana Act 64). In addition, the resolution found that it was reasonable for Entergy New Orleans to include in the principal amount of its potential securitization the costs to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve in an amount that achieved the City Council-approved funding level of $75 million. In January 2015, in compliance with that directive, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an application requesting that the City Council grant a financing order authorizing the financing of Entergy New Orleans’s storm costs, storm reserves, and issuance costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 64. In May 2015 the parties entered into an agreement in principle and the City Council issued a financing order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to issue storm recovery bonds in the aggregate amount of $98.7 million, including $31.8 million for recovery of Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm recovery costs, including carrying costs, $63.9 million to fund and replenish Entergy New Orleans’s storm reserve, and approximately $3 million for estimated up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. See Note 5 to the financial statements for discussion of the issuance of the securitization bonds in July 2015.

New Nuclear Generation Development Costs

Entergy Louisiana

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana were developing a project option for new nuclear generation at River Bend.  In March 2010, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC seeking approval to continue the limited development activities necessary to preserve an option to construct a new unit at River Bend.  At its June 2012 meeting the LPSC voted to uphold an ALJ recommendation that the request of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be declined on the basis that the LPSC’s rule on new nuclear development does not apply to activities to preserve an option to develop and on the further grounds that the companies improperly engaged in advanced preparation activities prior to certification.  The LPSC directed that Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana be permitted to seek recovery of these costs in their upcoming rate case filings that were subsequently filed in February 2013. In the resolution of the rate case proceeding the LPSC provided for an eight-year amortization of costs incurred in connection with the potential development of new nuclear generation at River Bend, without carrying costs, beginning in December 2014, provided, however, that amortization of these costs shall not result in a future rate increase. As of December 31, 2017, Entergy Louisiana has a regulatory asset of $35.8 million on its balance sheet related to these new nuclear generation development costs.

107

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




NOTE 3.    INCOME TAXES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Income taxes for 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries consist of the following:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Current:   
Federal$5,807 ($14,416)$36,848 
State57,939 6,535 7,274 
Total63,746 (7,881)44,122 
Deferred and non-current - net(190,635)(155,956)(1,074,416)
Investment tax credit adjustments - net5,383 (5,988)(6,532)
Income taxes($121,506)($169,825)($1,036,826)
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
Current:     
Federal
$29,595
 
$45,249
 
$77,166
Foreign
 68
 97
State15,478
 (14,960) 157,829
Total45,073
 30,357
 235,092
Deferred and non-current - net505,010
 (840,465) (864,799)
Investment tax credit adjustments - net(7,513) (7,151) (13,220)
Income taxes
$542,570
 
($817,259) 
($642,927)

Income taxes for 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 for Entergy’s Registrant Subsidiaries consist of the following:
2020Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
(In Thousands)
Current:      
Federal($44,627)$62,728 ($14,580)$293 ($5,603)$372,206 
State(2,563)4,457 (1,316)(303)2,658 55,551 
Total(47,190)67,185 (15,896)(10)(2,945)427,757 
Deferred and non-current - net96,195 (444,647)43,640 (18,153)6,619 (405,928)
Investment tax credit adjustments - net(1,228)(4,862)(554)13,956 (632)(1,286)
Income taxes$47,777 ($382,324)$27,190 ($4,207)$3,042 $20,543 
2017 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Current:            
Federal 
$16,086
 
($84,250) 
($8,845) 
($30,635) 
$6,034
 
$47,674
State 9,191
 1,480
 (924) (728) 310
 5,314
Total 25,277
 (82,770) (9,769) (31,363) 6,344
 52,988
Deferred and non-current - net 69,753
 572,988
 83,501
 62,946
 43,102
 19,243
Investment tax credit adjustments - net (1,226) (4,920) 187
 1,695
 (965) (2,262)
Income taxes 
$93,804
 
$485,298
 
$73,919
 
$33,278
 
$48,481
 
$69,969


104
2016 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Current:            
Federal 
($14,748) 
($124,113) 
$10,603
 
($91,067) 
$19,656
 
$29,628
State 2,805
 10,757
 2,257
 566
 1,374
 (25,825)
Total (11,943) (113,356) 12,860
 (90,501) 21,030
 3,803
Deferred and non-current - net 120,942
 208,157
 46,984
 119,345
 42,982
 71,051
Investment tax credit adjustments - net (1,226) (5,067) 4,010
 (139) (915) (3,793)
Income taxes 
$107,773
 
$89,734
 
$63,854
 
$28,705
 
$63,097
 
$71,061


108

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



2019Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Current:      
Federal($14,549)($20,173)($8,939)($5,822)$16,035 $16,256 
State(714)(735)5,823 1,856 663 (2,831)
Total(15,263)(20,908)(3,116)(3,966)16,698 13,425 
Deferred and non-current - net(30,278)147,453 34,579 4,248 (69,963)422 
Investment tax credit adjustments - net(1,228)(4,922)(597)(96)(631)1,502 
Income taxes($46,769)$121,623 $30,866 $186 ($53,896)$15,349 

2018Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Current:      
Federal($23,638)($15,841)($11,275)($10,813)$16,190 ($9,786)
State(1,617)(1,122)(1,066)545 3,205 (1,821)
Total(25,255)(16,963)(12,341)(10,268)19,395 (11,607)
Deferred and non-current - net(270,586)(32,725)(114,738)7,943 (44,817)(35,329)
Investment tax credit adjustments - net(1,226)(4,923)1,306 (111)(821)(739)
Income taxes($297,067)($54,611)($125,773)($2,436)($26,243)($47,675)

105

2015 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Current:            
Federal 
$66,966
 
$101,382
 
$25,628
 
($9,346) 
$53,313
 
($63,302)
State 6,265
 35,406
 6,832
 1,784
 2,450
 26,755
Total 73,231
 136,788
 32,460
 (7,562) 55,763
 (36,547)
Deferred and non-current - net (31,463) 47,220
 31,149
 32,890
 (17,599) 93,491
Investment tax credit adjustments - net (1,227) (5,337) (1,737) (138) (914) (3,867)
Income taxes 
$40,541
 
$178,671
 
$61,872
 
$25,190
 
$37,250
 
$53,077

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Total income taxes for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries differ from the amounts computed by applying the statutory income tax rate to income before income taxes.  The reasons for the differences for the years 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 are:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Net income attributable to Entergy Corporation$1,388,334 $1,241,226 $848,661 
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries18,319 17,018 13,894 
Consolidated net income1,406,653 1,258,244 862,555 
Income taxes(121,506)(169,825)(1,036,826)
Income (loss) before income taxes$1,285,147 $1,088,419 ($174,271)
Computed at statutory rate (21%)$269,881 $228,568 ($36,597)
Increases (reductions) in tax resulting from:   
State income taxes net of federal income tax effect60,087 61,791 21,398 
Regulatory differences - utility plant items(53,229)(45,336)(37,507)
Equity component of AFUDC(25,080)(30,444)(27,216)
Amortization of investment tax credits(8,386)(8,093)(8,304)
Flow-through / permanent differences11,099 (2,059)439 
Amortization of excess ADIT (a)(59,629)(205,614)(577,082)
Revisions of the 2017 tax legislation enactment regulatory liability accrual, including the effect of the Entergy Texas 2018 base rate proceeding(40,494)
Utility restructuring (b)(169,918)
Settlement on treatment of regulatory obligations (c)(52,320)
State income tax audit conclusion(23,425)
IRS audit adjustment (e)(301,041)(8,404)
Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear decommissioning trust restructuring (d)(106,833)
Entergy Wholesale Commodities restructuring (d)(9,223)(173,725)
Stock compensation (f)(25,591)
Charitable contribution (d)(19,101)
Net operating loss recognition(41,427)
Provision for uncertain tax positions15,208 7,332 24,569 
Valuation allowance59,345 2,211 
Other - net4,398 (1,062)2,657 
Total income taxes as reported($121,506)($169,825)($1,036,826)
Effective Income Tax Rate(9.5 %)(15.6)%595.0 %
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
Net income (loss) attributable to Entergy Corporation
$411,612
 
($583,618) 
($176,562)
Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries13,741
 19,115
 19,828
Consolidated net income (loss)425,353
 (564,503) (156,734)
Income taxes542,570
 (817,259) (642,927)
Income (loss) before income taxes
$967,923
 
($1,381,762) 
($799,661)
Computed at statutory rate (35%)
$338,773
 
($483,617) 
($279,881)
Increases (reductions) in tax resulting from: 
  
  
State income taxes net of federal income tax effect44,179
 40,581
 29,944
Regulatory differences - utility plant items39,825
 33,581
 32,089
Equity component of AFUDC(33,282) (23,647) (18,191)
Amortization of investment tax credits(10,204) (10,889) (11,136)
Flow-through / permanent differences8,727
 (19,307) (7,872)
Tax legislation enactment (a)560,410
 
 
Louisiana business combination
 
 (333,655)
Entergy Wholesale Commodities restructuring (b)(373,277) (237,760) 
Act 55 financing settlement (d)
 (63,477) 
FitzPatrick disposition(44,344) 
 
Provision for uncertain tax positions (c) (d)8,756
 (67,119) (56,683)
Valuation allowance
 11,411
 
Other - net3,007
 2,984
 2,458
Total income taxes as reported
$542,570
 
($817,259) 
($642,927)
Effective Income Tax Rate56.1% 59.1% 80.4%


(a)
See “Other Tax Matters - Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” below for discussion of the tax legislation enactment.
(b)
See Other Tax Matters - Entergy Wholesale Commodities Restructuring” below for discussion of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities restructuring.
(c)
See “Income Tax Audits- 2008-2009 IRS Audit” below for discussion of the most significant items for 2015.
(d)
See “Income Tax Audits- 2010-2011 IRS Audit” below for discussion of the most significant items for 2016.

(a)See “Other Tax Matters - Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” below for discussion of the amortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes (ADIT) in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and the tax legislation enactment in 2017.

(b)See “Other Tax Matters - Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi Internal Restructuring” below for discussion of the Utility restructuring.
(c)See “Income Tax Audits- 2012-2013 IRS Audit” below for discussion of the resolution of the audit.
(d)See Other Tax Matters - Entergy Wholesale Commodities Restructuring” below for discussion of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear decommissioning trust restructuring in 2018, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities restructurings in 2017 and 2019, the ownership of Palisades restructuring in 2020, and the charitable contribution in 2019.
(e)See “Income Tax Audits - 2014-2015 IRS Audit” below for discussion of the resolution of the audit in 2020.
109
106

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



(f)See “Other Tax Matters - Stock Compensation” below for discussion of excess tax deductions

Total income taxes for the Registrant Subsidiaries differ from the amounts computed by applying the statutory income tax rate to income before taxes.  The reasons for the differences for the years 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 are:
2020Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Net income$245,232 $1,082,352 $140,583 $49,338 $215,073 $99,131 
Income taxes47,777 (382,324)27,190 (4,207)3,042 20,543 
Pretax income$293,009 $700,028 $167,773 $45,131 $218,115 $119,674 
Computed at statutory rate (21%)$61,532 $147,006 $35,232 $9,478 $45,804 $25,132 
Increases (reductions) in tax resulting from:     
State income taxes net of federal income tax effect16,256 38,182 6,917 2,606 1,460 5,524 
Regulatory differences - utility plant items(8,034)(23,819)(7,441)(3,442)(7,673)(2,821)
Equity component of AFUDC(3,154)(8,012)(1,412)(1,331)(9,255)(1,916)
Amortization of investment tax credits(1,201)(4,811)(540)(61)(617)(1,155)
Flow-through / permanent differences(2,219)1,404 (102)498 766 (421)
Amortization of excess ADIT (b)(6,011)(26,293)18 (4,564)(22,780)
Stock compensation (e)(4,952)(9,004)(2,763)(1,526)(2,842)(1,300)
IRS audit adjustment (d)(6,351)(471,702)(3,768)(6,819)(2,091)(2,925)
Non-taxable dividend income(26,795)
Provision for uncertain tax positions1,200 300 800 800 300 
Other - net711 1,220 249 154 270 125 
Total income taxes as reported$47,777 ($382,324)$27,190 ($4,207)$3,042 $20,543 
Effective Income Tax Rate16.3 %(54.6)%16.2 %(9.3)%1.4 %17.2 %
2017 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Net income 
$139,844
 
$316,347
 
$110,032
 
$44,553
 
$76,173
 
$78,596
Income taxes 93,804
 485,298
 73,919
 33,278
 48,481
 69,969
Pretax income 
$233,648
 
$801,645
 
$183,951
 
$77,831
 
$124,654
 
$148,565
Computed at statutory rate (35%) 
$81,777
 
$280,576
 
$64,383
 
$27,241
 
$43,629
 
$51,998
Increases (reductions) in tax resulting from:    
  
  
  
  
State income taxes net of federal income tax effect 11,586
 31,927
 6,202
 2,842
 527
 5,635
Regulatory differences - utility plant items 7,220
 12,168
 1,356
 619
 5,581
 12,880
Equity component of AFUDC (6,458) (18,020) (3,383) (847) (2,353) (2,221)
Amortization of investment tax credits (1,201) (4,871) (160) (124) (951) (2,896)
Flow-through / permanent differences 3,098
 3,774
 1,567
 (3,352) 1,428
 (276)
Tax legislation enactment (a) (3,090) 217,258
 3,492
 6,153
 2,981
 (69)
Non-taxable dividend income 
 (44,658) 
 
 
 
Provision for uncertain tax positions 200
 5,700
 228
 600
 (2,617) 4,800
Other - net 672
 1,444
 234
 146
 256
 118
Total income taxes as reported 
$93,804
 
$485,298
 
$73,919
 
$33,278
 
$48,481
 
$69,969
Effective Income Tax Rate 40.1% 60.5% 40.2% 42.8% 38.9% 47.1%


107
2016 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Net income 
$167,212
 
$622,047
 
$109,184
 
$48,849
 
$107,538
 
$96,744
Income taxes 107,773
 89,734
 63,854
 28,705
 63,097
 71,061
Pretax income 
$274,985
 
$711,781
 
$173,038
 
$77,554
 
$170,635
 
$167,805
Computed at statutory rate (35%) 
$96,245
 
$249,123
 
$60,563
 
$27,144
 
$59,722
 
$58,732
Increases (reductions) in tax resulting from:  
  
  
  
  
  
State income taxes net of federal income tax effect 11,652
 29,014
 5,592
 3,543
 449
 7,001
Regulatory differences - utility plant items 10,971
 8,094
 (1,154) 2,329
 4,140
 9,201
Equity component of AFUDC (5,985) (9,774) (2,030) (412) (2,666) (2,780)
Amortization of investment tax credits (1,201) (5,019) (160) (132) (900) (3,476)
Flow-through / permanent differences (3,848) (980) 764
 (3,609) 634
 (883)
Act 55 financing settlement (b) 
 (61,620) 
 
 (454) 
Non-taxable dividend income 
 (44,658) 
 
 
 
Provision for uncertain tax positions (b) (717) (75,871) 50
 (300) 1,926
 3,151
Other - net 656
 1,425
 229
 142
 246
 115
Total income taxes as reported 
$107,773
 
$89,734
 
$63,854
 
$28,705
 
$63,097
 
$71,061
Effective Income Tax Rate 39.2% 12.6% 36.9% 37.0% 37.0% 42.3%


110

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






2019Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Net income$262,964 $691,537 $119,925 $52,629 $159,397 $99,120 
Income taxes(46,769)121,623 30,866 186 (53,896)15,349 
Pretax income$216,195 $813,160 $150,791 $52,815 $105,501 $114,469 
Computed at statutory rate (21%)$45,401 $170,764 $31,666 $11,091 $22,155 $24,039 
Increases (reductions) in tax resulting from:
State income taxes net of federal income tax effect15,954 42,854 5,563 3,443 360 5,134 
Regulatory differences - utility plant items(10,627)(19,421)(5,556)(1,532)(1,987)(6,213)
Equity component of AFUDC(3,255)(15,545)(1,755)(2,088)(5,973)(1,829)
Amortization of investment tax credits(1,201)(4,871)(160)(88)(617)(1,155)
Flow-through / permanent differences696 439 160 (741)560 (500)
Amortization of excess ADIT (b)(90,921)(28,531)203 (11,724)(69,091)(5,550)
Non-taxable dividend income(26,795)
Provision for uncertain tax positions(3,517)1,519 500 1,672 430 1,300 
Other - net701 1,210 245 153 267 123 
Total income taxes as reported($46,769)$121,623 $30,866 $186 ($53,896)$15,349 
Effective Income Tax Rate(21.6 %)15.0 %20.5 %0.4 %(51.1 %)13.4 %

108
2015 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Net income 
$74,272
 
$446,639
 
$92,708
 
$44,925
 
$69,625
 
$111,318
Income taxes 40,541
 178,671
 61,872
 25,190
 37,250
 53,077
Pretax income 
$114,813
 
$625,310
 
$154,580
 
$70,115
 
$106,875
 
$164,395
Computed at statutory rate (35%) 
$40,185
 
$218,859
 
$54,103
 
$24,540
 
$37,406
 
$57,538
Increases (reductions) in tax resulting from:  
  
  
  
  
  
State income taxes net of federal income tax effect 6,643
 23,650
 5,219
 2,887
 1,621
 6,403
Regulatory differences - utility plant items 7,299
 3,013
 2,383
 2,201
 3,703
 12,167
Equity component of AFUDC (4,979) (5,420) (1,083) (451) (1,987) (2,973)
Amortization of investment tax credits (1,201) (5,252) (160) (111) (900) (3,476)
Flow-through / permanent differences (4,062) 2,460
 431
 (4,539) 530
 618
Non-taxable dividend income 
 (44,658) 
 
 
 
Provision for uncertain tax positions (c) (3,978) (15,377) 756
 525
 (3,365) (17,313)
Other - net 634
 1,396
 223
 138
 242
 113
Total income taxes as reported 
$40,541
 
$178,671
 
$61,872
 
$25,190
 
$37,250
 
$53,077
Effective Income Tax Rate 35.3% 28.6% 40.0% 35.9% 34.9% 32.3%

(a)
See “Other Tax Matters - Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” below for discussion of the tax legislation enactment.
(b)
See “Income Tax Audits- 2010-2011 IRS Audit” below for discussion of the most significant items for Entergy Louisiana.
(c)
See “Income Tax Audits- 2008-2009 IRS Audit” below for discussion of the most significant items for Entergy Louisiana and System Energy.



111

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



2018Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Net income$252,707 $675,614 $126,078 $53,152 $162,235 $94,109 
Income taxes(297,067)(54,611)(125,773)(2,436)(26,243)(47,675)
Pretax income($44,360)$621,003 $305 $50,716 $135,992 $46,434 
Computed at statutory rate (21%)($9,316)$130,411 $64 $10,650 $28,558 $9,751 
Increases (reductions) in tax resulting from:      
State income taxes net of federal income tax effect(794)26,031 (1,747)2,322 2,576 2,812 
Regulatory differences - utility plant items(14,916)(12,604)(4,103)(1,502)(1,872)(2,510)
Equity component of AFUDC(3,477)(16,784)(1,829)(1,248)(2,042)(1,837)
Amortization of investment tax credits(1,201)(4,871)(160)(109)(808)(1,155)
Flow-through / permanent differences570 3,203 1,893 (4,222)1,038 2,815 
Revisions of the 2017 tax legislation enactment regulatory liability accrual, including the effect of the Entergy Texas 2018 base rate proceeding (a)933 (2,810)(556)884 (43,799)(3,565)
Amortization of excess ADIT (b)(271,570)(104,313)(120,831)(9,878)(11,519)(58,971)
Settlement on treatment of regulatory obligations (c)(52,320)
IRS audit adjustment1,290 1,097 1,018 (96)524 (12)
Non-taxable dividend income(26,795)
Provision for uncertain tax positions724 3,949 240 613 839 4,876 
Other - net690 1,195 238 150 262 121 
Total income taxes as reported($297,067)($54,611)($125,773)($2,436)($26,243)($47,675)
Effective Income Tax Rate669.7 %(8.8 %)(41,237.0 %)(4.8 %)(19.3 %)(102.7 %)

(a)See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the Entergy Texas rate case settlement.
(b)See “Other Tax Matters - Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” below for discussion of the amortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes (ADIT) in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and the tax legislation enactment in 2017.
(c)See “Income Tax Audits - 2012-2013 IRS Audit” below for discussion of the resolution of the audit for Entergy Louisiana.
(d)See “Income Tax Audits - 2014-2015 IRS Audit” below for discussion of the resolution of the audit in 2020.
(e)See “Other Tax Matters - Stock Compensation” below for discussion of excess tax deductions


109

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Significant components of accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are as follows:
 
2017 2016 20202019
(In Thousands) (In Thousands)
Deferred tax liabilities:   Deferred tax liabilities:  
Plant basis differences - net
($3,963,798) 
($6,362,905)Plant basis differences - net($4,795,422)($4,111,761)
Regulatory assets
 (584,572)Regulatory assets(429,996)(389,573)
Nuclear decommissioning trusts/receivables(1,657,808) (1,739,977)Nuclear decommissioning trusts/receivables(1,188,235)(1,015,542)
Pension, net funding(350,743) (429,896)Pension, net funding(327,445)(348,260)
Combined unitary state taxes(24,645) (33,063)Combined unitary state taxes(7,723)(11,519)
Power purchase agreements(19,621) (993)
Unbilled/deferred revenuesUnbilled/deferred revenues(9,152)(10,218)
Deferred fuelDeferred fuel(7,667)(8,360)
Other(249,327) (251,719)Other(549,355)(445,378)
Total(6,265,942) (9,403,125)Total(7,314,995)(6,340,611)
Deferred tax assets: 
  
Deferred tax assets:  
Nuclear decommissioning liabilities964,945
 1,399,468
Nuclear decommissioning liabilities968,464 929,251 
Regulatory liabilities841,370
 255,272
Regulatory liabilities791,927 806,777 
Pension and other post-employment benefits343,817
 539,456
Pension and other post-employment benefits278,486 297,272 
Sale and leaseback122,397
 135,866
Sale and leaseback102,477 102,420 
Compensation75,217
 99,300
Compensation89,279 87,355 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credit59,285
 92,375
Accumulated deferred investment tax credit57,379 56,013 
Provision for allowances and contingencies126,391
 188,390
Provision for allowances and contingencies71,598 126,886 
Power purchase agreementsPower purchase agreements352,019 231,502 
Net operating loss carryforwards467,255
 334,025
Net operating loss carryforwards1,580,109 1,133,197 
Capital losses and miscellaneous tax credits16,738
 18,470
Capital losses and miscellaneous tax credits21,291 22,597 
Valuation allowance(137,283) (104,277)Valuation allowance(328,581)(303,307)
Other54,058
 59,079
Other230,291 289,557 
Total2,934,190
 3,017,424
Total4,214,739 3,779,520 
Non-current accrued taxes (including unrecognized tax benefits)(956,547) (991,704)Non-current accrued taxes (including unrecognized tax benefits)(1,185,227)(1,775,638)
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued
($4,288,299) 
($7,377,405)Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued($4,285,483)($4,336,729)


Entergy’s estimated tax attributes carryovers and their expiration dates as of December 31, 20172020 are as follows:
Carryover DescriptionCarryover AmountYear(s) of expiration
Federal net operating losses before 1/1/2018$10.76.1 billion2023-2037
Federal net operating losses - 1/1/2018 forward$14.6 billionN/A
State net operating losses$9.619.7 billion2018-20372021-2040
Federal and state charitable contributions$449 million2021-2025
Miscellaneous federal and state credits$96.677.5 million2018-20362021-2040


110

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

As a result of the accounting for uncertain tax positions, the amount of the deferred tax assets reflected in the financial statements is less than the amount of the tax effect of the federal and state net operating loss carryovers, tax credit carryovers, and other tax attributes reflected on income tax returns. Entergy evaluates the available positive and negative evidence to estimate whether sufficient future taxable income of the appropriate character will be generated to realize the benefits of existing deferred tax assets. When the evaluation indicates that Entergy will not be able to realize the existing benefits, a valuation allowance is recorded to reduce deferred tax assets to the realizable amount.

Because it is more likely than not that the benefitbenefits from certain state net operating loss and credit carryoversother deferred tax assets will not be utilized, valuation allowances of $106totaling $329 million as of December 31, 20172020 and $62$303 million as of December 31, 20162019 have been provided on the deferred tax assets relating to these state net operating loss and credit carryovers. Additionally, valuation allowances totaling $31 million as of December 31, 2017 and $42.3 million as of December 31, 2016 have been provided on deferred tax assets related to federal and state jurisdictions in which Entergy does not currently expect to be able to utilize certain separate company tax return losses,attributes, preventing realization of such deferred tax assets.



112
111

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






Significant components of accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued for the Registrant Subsidiaries as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are as follows:
2020Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Deferred tax liabilities:      
Plant basis differences - net($1,117,948)($2,481,976)($623,796)($83,457)($620,669)($407,125)
Regulatory assets(188,284)(95,135)(22,381)(20,276)(47,684)(56,496)
Nuclear decommissioning trusts/receivables(156,123)(148,040)(131,985)
Pension, net funding(93,486)(95,854)(24,922)(11,564)(19,481)(20,330)
Deferred fuel(4,210)(1,706)(1,393)(314)
Other(54,753)(76,735)(27,565)(26,334)(141)(12,521)
Total(1,610,594)(2,901,950)(700,370)(143,024)(687,975)(628,771)
Deferred tax assets:      
Regulatory liabilities273,774 218,278 56,022 31,248 47,991 163,534 
Nuclear decommissioning liabilities123,319 7,767 (419)121 29,916 
Pension and other post-employment benefits(24,747)72,724 (6,763)(13,997)(17,132)(1,344)
Sale and leaseback102,477 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credit7,971 31,155 2,261 4,197 2,088 9,706 
Provision for allowances and contingencies22,179 7,071 16,799 24,529 (4,094)
Power purchase agreements9,662 3,381 1,140 (5,324)(30,932)
Unbilled/deferred revenues4,242 (23,382)2,989 877 5,909 
Compensation2,264 3,240 1,670 761 1,308 48 
Net operating loss carryforwards119,555 363,806 54,262 26,564 53,052 
Capital losses and miscellaneous tax credits9,309 12,317 7,014 
Other16,036 6,958 3,507 8,128 2,232 
Total554,255 700,307 131,887 88,881 60,543 311,353 
Non-current accrued taxes (including unrecognized tax benefits)(229,784)63,121 (78,191)(284,571)(11,990)(42,417)
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued($1,286,123)($2,138,522)($646,674)($338,714)($639,422)($359,835)
2017 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Deferred tax liabilities:            
Plant basis differences - net 
($1,289,827) 
($1,583,100) 
($571,682) 
($85,515) 
($526,596) 
($359,931)
Nuclear decommissioning trusts/receivables (181,911) (164,395) 
 
 
 (119,184)
Pension, net funding (99,971) (102,138) (26,413) (13,040) (20,700) (21,871)
Deferred fuel (16,530) (1,329) (19,005) (1,894) 
 (272)
Other (23,079) (98,307) (11,306) (23,610) (8,236) (5,955)
Total (1,611,318) (1,949,269) (628,406) (124,059) (555,532) (507,213)
Deferred tax assets:  
  
  
  
  
  
Regulatory liabilities 227,489
 368,156
 102,676
 23,526
 25,428
 91,271
Nuclear decommissioning liabilities 132,464
 58,891
 
 
 
 63,180
Pension and other post-employment benefits (16,252) 98,596
 (4,865) (9,618) (12,044) (516)
Sale and leaseback 
 19,915
 
 
 
 102,482
Accumulated deferred investment tax credit 8,913
 35,323
 2,212
 488
 2,516
 9,832
Provision for allowances and contingencies 4,367
 80,516
 11,898
 24,234
 4,383
 
Power purchase agreements 
 (6,924) 1,129
 
 
 
Unbilled/deferred revenues 6,195
 (18,263) 4,847
 1,811
 7,736
 
Compensation 2,566
 4,387
 1,466
 723
 1,224
 332
Net operating loss carryforwards 16,172
 44
 10,255
 
 1,690
 
Capital losses and miscellaneous tax credits 2,678
 
 5,736
 
 
 
Other 473
 21,922
 1,307
 388
 1,133
 
Total 385,065
 662,563
 136,661
 41,552
 32,066
 266,581
Non-current accrued taxes (including unrecognized tax benefits) 35,584
 (763,665) 2,939
 (200,795) (21,176) (535,788)
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued 
($1,190,669) 
($2,050,371) 
($488,806) 
($283,302) 
($544,642) 
($776,420)


113
112

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



2019Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Deferred tax liabilities:      
Plant basis differences - net($979,033)($1,987,025)($565,202)($133,073)($551,365)($380,594)
Regulatory assets(170,949)(79,117)(10,528)(16,867)(59,745)(52,662)
Nuclear decommissioning trusts/receivables(120,306)(113,830)(100,621)
Pension, net funding(102,685)(98,743)(27,325)(11,859)(19,961)(21,609)
Deferred fuel(2,637)(609)(666)(4,380)(55)
Other(82,682)(94,139)(27,905)(25,909)2,059 (7,350)
Total(1,455,655)(2,375,491)(631,569)(188,374)(633,392)(562,891)
Deferred tax assets:      
Regulatory liabilities250,410 283,507 53,421 33,258 65,602 121,011 
Nuclear decommissioning liabilities111,078 56,300 52,633 
Pension and other post-employment benefits(21,828)74,881 (5,844)(12,666)(15,406)(898)
Sale and leaseback102,480 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credit8,285 32,534 2,396 556 2,217 10,025 
Provision for allowances and contingencies5,365 77,298 12,963 24,022 4,024 
Power purchase agreements(15,087)18,004 1,147 7,961 26 
Unbilled/deferred revenues5,897 (28,081)4,715 1,428 5,544 
Compensation2,550 3,670 1,625 496 1,282 75 
Net operating loss carryforwards112,658 65,178 21,492 5,056 
Capital losses and miscellaneous tax credits45 7,857 
Other12,541 35,401 999 9,027 2,004 
Total471,869 618,692 92,959 69,138 65,293 293,186 
Non-current accrued taxes (including unrecognized tax benefits)(199,340)(707,714)(56,222)(235,300)(17,314)(544,235)
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued($1,183,126)($2,464,513)($594,832)($354,536)($585,413)($813,940)

113
2016 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Deferred tax liabilities:            
Plant basis differences - net 
($1,857,554) 
($2,357,599) 
($820,971) 
($177,242) 
($835,671) 
($651,394)
Regulatory assets (109,241) (219,750) (25,309) (36,301) (153,914) (39,879)
Nuclear decommissioning trusts (144,250) (119,544) 
 
 
 (83,891)
Pension, net funding (123,889) (122,465) (34,284) (16,307) (28,371) (29,357)
Deferred fuel (14,774) (1,778) (12,770) (5,229) (2,808) (1,137)
Power purchase agreements 
 
 
 
 
 
Other (47,785) (22,136) (12,474) (18,536) (8,812) (2,051)
Total (2,297,493) (2,843,272) (905,808) (253,615) (1,029,576) (807,709)
Deferred tax assets:  
  
  
  
  
  
Regulatory liabilities 5,768
 175,973
 18,833
 25,240
 15,814
 13,644
Nuclear decommissioning liabilities 124,206
 55,408
 
 
 
 53,113
Pension and other post-employment benefits (24,467) 145,401
 (8,042) (12,070) (19,096) (1,182)
Sale and leaseback 
 33,383
 
 
 
 102,483
Accumulated deferred investment tax credit 13,848
 54,509
 3,315
 239
 4,527
 15,936
Provision for allowances and contingencies (1,497) 124,309
 21,817
 36,466
 5,904
 
Power purchase agreements (3,094) 29,827
 1,905
 
 140
 
Unbilled/deferred revenues 6,799
 (35,006) 5,085
 3,751
 11,902
 
Compensation 2,787
 5,309
 1,492
 685
 1,587
 360
Net operating loss carryforwards 69,524
 17,125
 
 
 
 
Capital losses and miscellaneous tax credits 2,074
 
 4,487
 
 
 
Other 174
 17,110
 1,152
 496
 2,955
 
Total 196,122
 623,348
 50,044
 54,807
 23,733
 184,354
Non-current accrued taxes (including unrecognized tax benefits) (85,252) (471,194) (5,567) (136,145) (21,804) (489,510)
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued 
($2,186,623) 
($2,691,118) 
($861,331) 
($334,953) 
($1,027,647) 
($1,112,865)


114

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






The Registrant Subsidiaries’ estimated tax attributes carryovers and their expiration dates as of December 31, 20172020 are as follows:

Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
Federal net operating losses before 1/1/2018$0 billion$1.7 billion$0 billion$0.9 billion$0 billion$0 billion
Year(s) of expirationN/A2035-2037N/A2037N/AN/A
Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
Federal net operating losses - 1/1/2018 forward$77 million4.4 billion$4.31.4 billion$86.6 million1.9 billion$1.10.3 billion$2.7 billion$0 billion
Year(s) of expiration2030-2037N/A2035-2037N/A2030-2037N/A2037N/AN/AN/A
State net operating losses$4.5 billion$54 billion$2 billion$1.21.3 billion$0 million$0 million
Year(s) of expiration2023-20252035-20402038-20402037-2040N/A2029-2037N/A2037N/AN/A
Misc. federal credits$2.72.9 million$1.79.3 million$2.71.2 million$2.114.8 million$0.62.6 million$2.51.3 million
Year(s) of expiration2029-20362038-20402029-20362035-20402029-20362038-20402029-20362037-20402029-20362029-20402029-20362029-2040
State credits$0 million$0 million$4.90 million$0million$3.22.9 million$1013.1 million
Year(s) of expirationN/AN/A2018-2021N/AN/A20262018-20212021-2023


As a result of the accounting for uncertain tax positions, the amount of the deferred tax assets reflected in the financial statements is less than the amount of the tax effect of the federal and state net operating loss carryovers and tax credit carryovers.


Unrecognized tax benefits


Accounting standards establish a “more-likely-than-not” recognition threshold that must be met before a tax benefit can be recognized in the financial statements.  If a tax deduction is taken on a tax return but does not meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold, an increase in income tax liability, above what is payable on the tax return, is required to be recorded.  A reconciliation of Entergy’s beginning and ending amount of unrecognized tax benefits is as follows:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Gross balance at January 1$7,383,154 $7,181,482 $4,871,846 
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year669,207 731,276 2,276,614 
Additions for tax positions of prior years98,591 151,628 506,142 
Reductions for tax positions of prior years(935,735)(681,232)(274,600)
Settlements(1,515,878)(198,520)
Gross balance at December 315,699,339 7,383,154 7,181,482 
Offsets to gross unrecognized tax benefits:   
Carryovers and refund claims(4,710,214)(5,831,587)(5,957,992)
Cash paid to taxing authorities(10,000)(10,000)(10,000)
Unrecognized tax benefits net of unused tax attributes, refund claims and payments (a)$979,125 $1,541,567 $1,213,490 
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
Gross balance at January 1
$3,909,855
 
$2,611,585
 
$4,736,785
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year1,120,687
 1,532,782
 1,850,705
Additions for tax positions of prior years283,683
 368,404
 59,815
Reductions for tax positions of prior years (a)(442,379) (265,653) (3,966,535)
Settlements
 (337,263) (68,227)
Lapse of statute of limitations
 
 (958)
Gross balance at December 314,871,846
 3,909,855
 2,611,585
Offsets to gross unrecognized tax benefits: 
  
  
Carryovers and refund claims(3,945,524) (2,922,085) (1,264,483)
Cash paid to taxing authorities(10,000) (10,000) 
Unrecognized tax benefits net of unused tax attributes, refund claims and payments (b)
$916,322
 
$977,770
 
$1,347,102

(a)
The primary reduction for 2015 is related to the nuclear decommissioning costs treatment discussed in “Income Tax Audits - 2008-2009 IRS Audit” below.
(b)Potential tax liability above what is payable on tax returns



115
114

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



(a)Potential tax liability above what is payable on tax returns

The balances of unrecognized tax benefits include $1,462$2,208 million, $1,240$2,421 million, and $955$2,161 million as of December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, respectively, which, if recognized, would lower the effective income tax rates.  Because of the effect of deferred tax accounting, the remaining balances of unrecognized tax benefits of $3,410$3,491 million, $2,670$4,962 million, and $1,657$5,020 million as of December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, respectively, if disallowed, would not affect the annual effective income tax rate but would accelerate the payment of cash to the taxing authority to an earlier period.


Entergy accrues interest expense, if any, related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense.  Entergy’s December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 accrued balance for the possible payment of interest is approximately $38$44 million, $30$48 million, and $27$44 million, respectively. Interest (net-of-tax) of $(4) million, $4 million, and $7 million was recorded in 2020, 2019, and 2018, respectively.


A reconciliation of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ beginning and ending amount of unrecognized tax benefits for 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 is as follows:
2020Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Gross balance at January 1, 2020$1,341,242 $2,381,653 $566,287 $716,773 $21,406 $473,331 
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year9,403 35,681 5,619 2,430 504,362 4,013 
Additions for tax positions of prior years13,400 10,508 1,156 294 799 4,606 
Reductions for tax positions of prior years(11,346)(679,601)(24,173)(80,267)(5,559)(41,466)
Settlements11,936 (1,107,946)828 316 924 (418,832)
Gross balance at December 31, 20201,364,635 640,295 549,717 639,546 521,932 21,652 
Offsets to gross unrecognized tax benefits:      
Loss carryovers(1,112,628)(640,295)(465,679)(451,922)(507,720)(7,413)
Unrecognized tax benefits net of unused tax attributes and payments$252,007 $0 $84,038 $187,624 $14,212 $14,239 
2017 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Gross balance at January 1, 2017 
$2,503
 
$2,440,339
 
$12,206
 
$166,230
 
$15,946
 
$472,372
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year (a) 8,974
 32,843
 2,105
 509,183
 1,747
 909
Additions for tax positions of prior years 3,682
 235,331
 1,267
 13,364
 3,115
 1,432
Reductions for tax positions of prior years (132,875) (190,056) (456) (9,233) (4,409) (29,202)
Gross balance at December 31, 2017 (117,716) 2,518,457
 15,122
 679,544
 16,399
 445,511
Offsets to gross unrecognized tax benefits:  
  
  
  
  
  
Loss carryovers 
 (1,591,907) (15,122) (441,374) (638) (12,536)
Unrecognized tax benefits net of unused tax attributes and payments 
($117,716) 
$926,550
 
$—
 
$238,170
 
$15,761
 
$432,975


2019Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Gross balance at January 1, 2019$1,298,662 $2,400,171 $508,765 $686,687 $17,802 $467,487 
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year (a)84,335 28,705 68,594 40,676 2,312 5,496 
Additions for tax positions of prior years20,399 25,090 1,651 489 1,299 2,186 
Reductions for tax positions of prior years(62,154)(72,313)(12,723)(11,079)(7)(1,838)
Gross balance at December 31, 20191,341,242 2,381,653 566,287 716,773 21,406 473,331 
Offsets to gross unrecognized tax benefits:      
Loss carryovers(1,134,187)(1,573,257)(506,976)(445,430)(3,944)(8,392)
Unrecognized tax benefits net of unused tax attributes and payments$207,055 $808,396 $59,311 $271,343 $17,462 $464,939 

115
2016 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Gross balance at January 1, 2016 
$25,445
 
$1,690,661
 
$19,482
 
$53,897
 
$13,462
 
$478,318
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year (a) 16,868
 931,720
 2,662
 33,912
 2,002
 5,318
Additions for tax positions of prior years 2,463
 157,586
 336
 129,784
 2,888
 601
Reductions for tax positions of prior years (41,957) (144,068) (10,219) (29,821) (1,849) (10,266)
Settlements (316) (195,560) (55) (21,542) (557) (1,599)
Gross balance at December 31, 2016 2,503
 2,440,339
 12,206
 166,230
 15,946
 472,372
Offsets to gross unrecognized tax benefits:  
  
  
  
  
  
Loss carryovers 
 (1,783,093) (2,373) (27,320) (376) (90,028)
Unrecognized tax benefits net of unused tax attributes and payments 
$2,503
 
$657,246
 
$9,833
 
$138,910
 
$15,570
 
$382,344


116

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






2018Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Gross balance at January 1, 2018($117,716)$2,518,457 $15,122 $679,544 $16,399 $445,511 
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year (a)1,430,828 30,577 493,039 2,261 1,978 18,271 
Additions for tax positions of prior years31,612 77,372 3,878 12,972 1,722 7,255 
Reductions for tax positions of prior years(21,619)(158,510)(3,253)(8,081)(2,262)(3,253)
Settlements(24,443)(67,725)(21)(9)(35)(297)
Gross balance at December 31, 20181,298,662 2,400,171 508,765 686,687 17,802 467,487 
Offsets to gross unrecognized tax benefits:      
Loss carryovers(1,173,839)(1,597,826)(478,268)(420,813)(3,199)(42,228)
Unrecognized tax benefits net of unused tax attributes and payments$124,823 $802,345 $30,497 $265,874 $14,603 $425,259 

2015 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Gross balance at January 1, 2015 
$362,912
 
$1,205,929
 
$20,144
 
$53,763
 
$17,264
 
$258,242
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year (b) 2,196
 1,367,058
 566
 472
 657
 472,304
Additions for tax positions of prior years 1,057
 7,992
 8,140
 48
 2,914
 913
Reductions for tax positions of prior years (340,720) (859,430) 
 (386) (3,981) (253,141)
Settlements 
 (30,888) (9,368) 
 (3,392) 
Gross balance at December 31, 2015 25,445
 1,690,661
 19,482
 53,897
 13,462
 478,318
Offsets to gross unrecognized tax benefits:  
  
  
  
  
  
Loss carryovers (3,613) (893,764) (1,016) (506) (276) (133,611)
Unrecognized tax benefits net of unused tax attributes and payments 
$21,832
 
$796,897
 
$18,466
 
$53,391
 
$13,186
 
$344,707
(a)The primary additions for Entergy Texas in 2020 and Entergy Mississippi in 2018 are related to the mark-to-market treatment discussed in “Other Tax Matters - Tax Accounting Methods” below. The primary additions for Entergy Arkansas in 2018 are related to the nuclear decommissioning costs treatment and the mark-to-market treatment discussed in “Other Tax Matters - Tax Accounting Methods” below.

(a)
The primary additions for Entergy Louisiana in 2016 and for Entergy New Orleans in 2017 are related to the mark-to-market treatment discussed in “Other Tax Matters - Tax Accounting Methods” below.
(b)
The primary addition for Entergy Louisiana and System Energy is related to the nuclear decommissioning costs treatment discussed in “Other Tax Matters - Tax Accounting Methods” below.


The Registrant Subsidiaries’ balances of unrecognized tax benefits included amounts which, if recognized, would have reduced income tax expense as follows:
December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas$259.3 $203.3 $85.4 
Entergy Louisiana$63.8 $556.3 $594.0 
Entergy Mississippi$50.7 $1.9 $1.5 
Entergy New Orleans$203.5 $242.7 $246.2 
Entergy Texas$6.1 $5.7 $5.1 
System Energy$0.5 $0 $0 

Accrued balances for the possible payment of interest related to unrecognized tax benefits are as follows:
December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas$2.3 $3.1 $1.7 
Entergy Louisiana$3.4 $14.2 $17.9 
Entergy Mississippi$1.9 $1.7 $1.2 
Entergy New Orleans$3.9 $4.7 $2.7 
Entergy Texas$0.9 $1.1 $0.9 
System Energy$11.9 $14.5 $13.2 

116

 December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas
$2.6
 
$3.6
 
$4.5
Entergy Louisiana
$575.8
 
$473.3
 
$692.7
Entergy Mississippi
$—
 
$—
 
$8.1
Entergy New Orleans
$31.7
 
$33.6
 
$50.7
Entergy Texas
$4.4
 
$7.0
 
$5.2
System Energy
$—
 
$—
 
$0.7

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

The Registrant Subsidiaries accruerecord interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense.  Penalties have not been accrued.  Accrued balances for the possible payment of interest areNo penalties were recorded in 2020, 2019, and 2018. Interest (net-of-tax) was recorded as follows:
202020192018
(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas($0.8)$1.4 $0.2 
Entergy Louisiana($10.8)($3.7)$3.8 
Entergy Mississippi$0.2 $0.5 $0.2 
Entergy New Orleans($0.8)$2.0 $0.6 
Entergy Texas($0.2)$0.2 $0.5 
System Energy($2.6)$1.3 $4.7 
 December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas
$1.6
 
$1.4
 
$1.3
Entergy Louisiana
$14.1
 
$8.4
 
$9.3
Entergy Mississippi
$1.0
 
$0.8
 
$0.4
Entergy New Orleans
$2.1
 
$1.5
 
$1.8
Entergy Texas
$0.4
 
$1.2
 
$1.2
System Energy
$8.5
 
$3.7
 
$0.7


117

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Income Tax Audits


Entergy and its subsidiaries file U.S. federal and various state and foreign income tax returns.  IRS examinations are complete for years before 2012.2016. All state taxing authorities’ examinations are complete for years before 2010.2015. Entergy regularly negotiatesdefends its positions and works with the IRS to achieve settlements.resolve audits.  The resolution of audit issues could result in significant changes to the amounts of unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.


2006-20072012-2013 IRS Audit


In the first quarter 2015, the IRS finalized tax and interest computations from the 2006-2007 audit that resulted in a reversal of Entergy’s provision for uncertain tax positions related to accrued interest of approximately $20 million, including decreases of approximately $4 million for Entergy Arkansas, $11 million for Entergy Louisiana, and $1 million for System Energy.

2008-2009 IRS Audit

In the fourth quarter 2009, Entergy filed Applications for Change in Accounting Method (the “2009 CAM”) for tax purposes with the IRS for certain costs under Section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code.  In the Applications, Entergy proposed to treat the nuclear decommissioning liability associated with the operation of its nuclear power plants as a production cost properly includable in cost of goods sold.  The effect of the 2009 CAM was a $5.7 billion reduction in 2009 taxable income.  The 2009 CAM was adjusted to $9.3 billion in 2012.

In the fourth quarter 2012, the IRS disallowed the reduction to 2009 taxable income related to the 2009 CAM.  In the third quarter 2013, the Internal Revenue Service issued its Revenue Agent Report (RAR) for the tax years 2008-2009. As a result of the issuance of this RAR, Entergy and the IRS resolved all of the 2008-2009 issues described above except for the 2009 CAM. Entergy disagreed with the IRS’s disallowance of the 2009 CAM and filed a protest with the IRS Appeals Division in October 2013.

In August 2015, Entergy and the IRS agreed on the treatment of the 2009 position regarding nuclear decommissioning liabilities from the 2008-2009 audit. The agreement provides that Entergy is entitled to deduct approximately $118 million of the $9.3 billion claimed in 2009. The agreement effectively settled all matters pertaining to the 2009 tax year and increased Entergy’s 2009 federal income tax liability by $2.4 million.

2010-2011 IRS Audit

The IRS completed its examination of the 20102012 and 20112013 tax years and issued its 2010-2011 RAR2012-2013 Revenue Agent Report (RAR) in June 2016.2018. Entergy agreed to all proposed adjustments contained in the RAR. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries recorded the effects of these adjustments in June 2018.

As a result of the issuance of the RAR, Entergy Louisiana was able to recognize previously unrecognized tax benefits as follows:

Entergy andof $52 million related to the IRS agreed that $148.6 million of the proceeds received by Entergy Louisiana in 2010 from the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation (LURC), an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana, for the financing of Hurricane GustavKatrina and Hurricane Ike storm costs pursuant to Act 55 of the Louisiana Regular Session of 2007 (Louisiana Act 55) were not taxable. Because the treatment of the financing is settled, Entergy recognized previously unrecognized tax benefits totaling $63.5 million, of which Entergy Louisiana recorded $61.6 million. Entergy Louisiana also accrued a regulatory liability of $16.1 million ($9.9 million net-of-tax) in accordance with the terms of Entergy Louisiana’s previous settlement agreement approved by the LPSC regarding Entergy Louisiana’sRita contingent sharing obligation to pay to customers savings associated with the Louisiana Act 55 financing.


2014-2015 IRS Audit

The IRS completed its examination of the 2014 and 2015 tax years and issued its 2014-2015 RAR in November 2020.Entergy agreed to all proposed adjustments contained in the RAR.Entergy and the IRS agreed uponRegistrant Subsidiaries recorded the effects of the adjustments associated with the audit in 2020.

In October 2015 two of Entergy’s Louisiana utilities, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, combined their businesses into a legal entity which is identified as Entergy Louisiana herein.The structure of the business combination required Entergy to recognize a gain for income tax purposes which resulted in an increase in the tax treatmentbasis of the assets for Entergy Louisiana. This resulted in recognition in 2015 of a $334 million permanent difference and income tax benefit, net of the uncertain tax position recorded on the transaction.

Primarily related to resolution of the business combination issues, completion of the 2014-2015 IRS audit in 2020 resulted in a $230 million reduction to deferred income tax expense for Entergy. This reduction to deferred income tax expense includes: Entergy Louisiana reversing its provision for uncertain tax position with respect to the business combination, which resulted in a reduction to deferred income tax expense of $383 million; Entergy Corporation recording an increase to deferred tax expense of $61 million and Entergy Wholesale Commodities recording an increase to deferred tax expense of $105 million from the re-measurement of deferred tax assets associated with the resolved uncertain tax position; and miscellaneous other individually insignificant benefits totaling $13 million.

The completion of the 2014-2015 tax audit also resulted in a $31 million reduction to income tax expense associated with Entergy Louisiana’s regulatory liabilitymethod of accounting related to the Vidalia purchased power agreement. As a result, Entergy Louisiana recognized a previously unrecognized tax benefitadoption of $74.5 million.

tangible property regulations.
118
117

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






As a result of the settlement of the tangible property regulation tax position, Entergy Louisiana was required to record a $33 million ($24 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to customers pursuant to a prior regulatory settlement.

Finally, upon completion of the 2014-2015 tax audit, Entergy New Orleans recorded a reduction to income tax expense of $8 million associated with claims for mark-to-market deductions.

In the first quarter 2020, Entergy and the IRS agreed on the treatment of funds received by Entergy Louisiana in conjunction with the Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac storm costs, which resulted in a net reduction of income tax expense of approximately $32 million. As a result of the settlement, the position was partially sustained, and Entergy Louisiana recorded a reduction of income tax expense of approximately $58 million primarily due to the reversal of a provision for uncertain tax positions in excess of the agreed-upon settlement. As a result of the IRS settlement, Entergy Louisiana recorded a $29 million ($21 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to customers pursuant to the LPSC Hurricane Isaac Act 55 financing order.

Additional effects of the completion of the 2014-2015 IRS tax audit are discussed below within Tax Accounting Methods.

Other Tax Matters


Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)


Deferred tax liabilities and assets have been adjusted for the effect of the enactment of H.R. 1, also known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Act),TCJA, signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017.The most significant effect of the ActTCJA for Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries iswas the change in the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, effective January 1, 2018. Other significant provisions and their effect on Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are summarized below.

The Act limitsTCJA limited the deduction for net business interest expense in certain circumstances.to 30 percent of adjusted taxable income, which is similar to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. The new limitation does not apply to interest expense however, that is properly allocable to a trade or business that furnishes or sells electrical energy, gas, or steam throughclassified as a local distribution system, or transports gas or steam by pipeline if the rates for such furnishing or sale are subject to ratemakingregulated public utility.This was further modified by a government entitytemporary provision of the CARES Act resulting in an increase of the adjusted taxable income limitation from 30% to 50% for tax years that begin in 2019 or instrumentality or by2020.

The IRS issued proposed regulations relating to this limitation in November 2018 and July 2020.The IRS issued certain final regulations in July 2020 and January 2021, which were published in the Federal Register in September 2020 and January 2021, respectively.The proposed regulations are generally to be effective for taxable years ending after the date Treasury adopted the regulations as final. The final regulations will be effective for Entergy beginning with the 2021 tax year. Taxpayers may apply the rules of the proposed regulations to a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, as long as taxpayers consistently apply the rules of the proposed regulations.The proposed and final regulations provide that if 90% of a tax group’s consolidated assets consist of regulated utility property, the entire consolidated tax group will be treated as a regulated public utility commission. Accordingly,and all of the potentialconsolidated group’s interest expense disallowance is not expectedwill be currently tax deductible.

As a result of the limitation under TCJA, Entergy recorded limitations in 2018 and 2019 and recorded a deferred tax asset on the nondeductible portion, as it has an unlimited carryover period. Entergy recorded a valuation allowance of $24 million due to have a material effect on Entergy’s orlack of earnings from sources other than the Registrant Subsidiaries’ interest deductions.Utility. No limitation was recorded in 2020.

The Act extends and modifies the additional first-year depreciation deduction (bonus depreciation). The Act excludes from bonus-eligible qualified property, however, any property used in a trade or business that furnishes or sells electrical energy, gas, or steam through a local distribution system, or transportation of gas or steam by pipeline if the rates for furnishing those services are subject to ratemaking by a government entity or instrumentality or by a public utility commission. Accordingly, the extension of bonus depreciation and modifications generally do not apply to Entergy or the Registrant Subsidiaries.
The Act limitsTCJA limited the net operating loss (NOL) deduction for a given year to 80% of taxable income, effective with respect to losses arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.Only NOLs generated after December 31, 2017 are subject to the 80% limitation. A temporary provision of the CARES Act (discussed below) removes this limitation and allows corporate taxpayers to fully offset taxable income with NOLs carried to tax years
118

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

beginning before 2021.Prior law generally provided a two-year carryback and 20-year carryforward for NOLs. The Act providesTCJA does not allow a carryback period but does provide for the indefinite carryforward of NOLs arising in tax years ending after December 31, 2017, as opposed to2017.However, with the current 20-year carryforward.enactment of the CARES Act, a temporary provision allows for a five-year carryback of 2018-2020 NOLs. Because of the indefinite carryforward, the new limitations on NOL utilization are not expected to have a material effect on Entergy or the Registrant Subsidiaries.

The ActTCJA also modified Internal Revenue Code section 162(m), which limits the deduction for compensation with respect to certain covered employees to no more than $1 million per year. The Act includesIRS issued proposed regulations relating to this limitation in December 2019 and final regulations in December 2020. The significant provisions of the TCJA and associated proposed and final regulations require inclusion of performance-based compensation and an expanded definition of “covered employees” in the annual computation of the section 162 limitation. The changes are expected to resultTCJA amendments and associated proposed regulations resulted in an increase in disallowed compensation expense, but this limitation isdoes not expected to have a material effect on Entergy or the Registrant Subsidiaries.
Other provisions that are not expected to have a material effect on Entergy or the Registrant Subsidiaries include the following:
repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT),
modification to the capital contribution rules under Internal Revenue Code section 118,
repeal of domestic production activities deduction, and
fundamental changes to the taxation of multinational entities.


With respect to the federal corporate income tax rate change from 35% to 21%, in 2017, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries believe it is probable thatrecorded a significant portion ofregulatory liability associated with the decrease in the net accumulated deferred income tax liability, which is often referred to as “excess ADIT,” will be returneda significant portion of which has been paid to customers. Accordingly, it is appropriate for Entergycustomers in 2019 and 2020 in the Registrant Subsidiaries to establish a regulatory liability for the probable reduction in future revenue.form of lower rates. Entergy’s December 31, 20172020 and December 31, 2019 balance sheet reflectssheets reflect a regulatory liability of $2.9$1.6 billion due toand $1.7 billion, respectively, as a result of the re-measurement of deferred tax assets and liabilities resulting from the income tax rate change.change, amortization of excess ADIT, and payments to customers during 2019 and 2020. Entergy’s regulatory liability for income taxes includes a gross-up at the applicable tax rate because of the effect that excess ADIT has on the ratemaking formula. The regulatory liability for income taxes includes the effect of a) the reduction of the net deferred tax liability resulting

119

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


in excess ADIT, b) the tax gross-up of excess ADIT, and c) the effect of the new tax rate on the previous net regulatory asset for income taxes. For the same reasons, the Registrant Subsidiaries’ December 31, 20172020 and December 31, 2019 balance sheets reflect net regulatory liabilities for income taxes as follows: Entergy Arkansas, $986 million; Entergy Louisiana, $725 million; Entergy Mississippi, $411 million; Entergy New Orleans, $119 million; Entergy Texas, $413 million; and System Energy, $246 million.
20202019
(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas$467 $487 
Entergy Louisiana$479 $531 
Entergy Mississippi$224 $237 
Entergy New Orleans$59 $59 
Entergy Texas$205 $253 
System Energy$152 $143 

Excess ADIT is generally classified into two categories: 1) the portion that is subject to the normalization requirements of the Act,TCJA, i.e., “protected”, and 2) the portion that is not subject to such normalization provisions, referred to as “unprotected”. The ActTCJA provides that the normalization method of accounting for income taxes is required for excess ADIT associated with public utility property. The ActTCJA provides for the use of the average rate assumption method (ARAM) for the determination of the timing of the return of excess ADIT associated with such property. Under ARAM, the excess ADIT is reduced over the remaining life of the asset. Remaining asset lives vary for each Registrant Subsidiary, but the average life of public utility property is typically 30 years or longer. Entergy will returnamortize the protected portion of the excess ADIT in conformity with the normalization requirements. The Registrant Subsidiaries’ net regulatory liability for income taxes as of December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, includes protected excess ADIT as follows:
119

Entergy Arkansas, $554 million; Entergy Louisiana, $782 million; Entergy Mississippi, $274 million; Entergy New Orleans, $71 million; Entergy Texas, $276 million;Corporation and System Energy, $217 million.Subsidiaries
The return periodNotes to Financial Statements




20202019
(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas$490 $490 
Entergy Louisiana$721 $797 
Entergy Mississippi$248 $261 
Entergy New Orleans$61 $62 
Entergy Texas$215 $228 
System Energy$173 $186 

During the second quarter of 2018, the Registrant Subsidiaries began paying unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes, associated with the effects of the Act, to their customers through rate riders and other means approved by their respective regulatory commissions. Payment of the unprotected excess ADIT is subjectaccumulated deferred income taxes results in a reduction in the regulatory liability for income taxes and a corresponding reduction in income tax expense. This has a significant effect on the effective tax rate for the period as compared to the regulatory process in each jurisdiction and has yet to be determined. Further, a portion of the unprotected excess ADIT amount is associated with amounts previously securitized and may be treated differently than other unprotected excess ADIT consistent with applicable agreements and/or not be subject to the same schedule for the return to customers as the remaining unprotected excess ADIT.statutory tax rate. The Registrant Subsidiaries’ net regulatory liability for income taxes as of December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, includes unprotected excess ADIT as follows: Entergy Arkansas, $467 million; Entergy Louisiana, $410 million; Entergy Mississippi, $162 million; Entergy New Orleans, $37 million; Entergy Texas, $198 million;
20202019
(In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas$11 $9 
Entergy Louisiana$223 $242 
Entergy New Orleans$3 $9 
Entergy Texas$54 $83 
System Energy$16 $0 

The return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes reduced Entergy’s and System Energy, $76 million. the Registrant Subsidiaries’ regulatory liability for income taxes as follows for 2020 and 2019:
20202019
(In Millions)
Entergy$74 $273 
Entergy Arkansas$8 $126 
Entergy Louisiana$31 $39 
Entergy New Orleans$6 $14 
Entergy Texas$29 $87 
System Energy$0 $7 

In addition to the protected and unprotected excess ADIT amounts, the net regulatory liability for income taxes includes other regulatory assets and liabilities for income taxes associated with AFUDC, which is described in Note 1 to the financial statements.

For a discussion of the proceedings commenced or other responses by Entergy’s regulators to the Act, see Note 2 to the financial statements.
Not all of Entergy’s excess ADIT is included in ratemaking. Consequently, Entergy recorded a net decrease in deferred tax assets of $560 million for which there is a corresponding charge to income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2017. The corresponding income tax expense (or benefit) recorded by the Registrant Subsidiaries is as follows: Entergy Arkansas, ($3 million); Entergy Louisiana, $217 million; Entergy Mississippi, $3 million; Entergy New Orleans, $6 million; Entergy Texas, $3 million; and System Energy, $0.
Included in the effect of the computation of the changes in deferred tax assets and liabilities is the recognition threshold and measurement of uncertain tax positions resulting in unrecognized tax benefits.The final economic outcome of such unrecognized tax benefits is generally the result of a negotiated settlement with the IRS that often differs from the amount that is recorded as realizable under GAAP.The intrinsic uncertainty with respect to all such tax positions means that the difference between current estimates of such amounts likely to be realized
120

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

and actual amounts realized upon settlement may have an effect on income tax expense and the regulatory liability for income taxes in future periods.


Entergy’s accounting for the effects of the Act is complete using the best estimates and information available to it at this time. Entergy anticipates that the Act,TCJA, including the federal corporate income tax rate change, however, willmay continue to have ramifications that require adjustments in the future as certain events occur.These events include: 1) the evaluation by regulators in all of Entergy’s jurisdictions regarding the ratemaking treatment of the ActTCJA and excess ADIT; 2) the filingIRS audit adjustments to or amendments of all applicable federal and state income tax returns that include any tax elections that may change estimates accrued inmodifications to the year-end recording process;computation of taxable income resulting from TCJA; and 3) additional guidance, interpretations, or rulings by the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the IRS.The potential exists for these types of events to result in future tax expense adjustments

120

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


because of the difference in the federal corporate income tax rate between past and future periods and the effect of the tax rate change on ratemaking.In turn, these items also willcould potentially affect the regulatory liability for income taxes.
Louisiana Business Combination

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

In October 2015 two of Entergy’s Louisiana utilities, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, combined their businesses into a legal entity which is identified as Entergy Louisiana herein. The structureresponse to the economic impacts of the business combination generated both a permanent differenceCOVID-19 pandemic, President Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and a temporary difference under FASB ASC Topic 740.Economic Security Act (CARES Act) into law on March 27, 2020. The permanent difference resulted from recognition of the Waterford 3 and River Bend decommissioning liabilities as part of the business combination. Recognition of such decommissioning liabilities required Entergy to also recognize a taxable gain. The taxable gain resulted in a temporary difference because the gain provided for an increase in tax basis. Entergy Louisiana maintained a carryover tax basisCARES Act provisions that result in the assets received; and,most significant opportunities for tax relief to the extent that the increase in tax basis will provide additional tax depreciation, Entergy recorded a deferred tax asset. Entergy Louisiana obtained the corresponding deferred tax asset in the business combination. The permanent tax benefit net of ancillary tax charges was approximately $334 million. Consistent with the terms of the stipulated settlement in the business combination proceeding, electric customers of Entergy Louisiana will realize customer credits associated with the business combination. Accordingly, in October 2015, Entergy recorded a regulatory liability of $107 million ($66 million net-of-tax) which partially offsets the effect of the aforementioned deferred tax asset. The deferred tax asset and the regulatory liability, net-of-tax, increasedRegistrant Subsidiaries are (i) permitting a five-year carryback of 2018-2020 NOLs, (ii) removing the 80 percent limitation on NOLs carried to tax years beginning before 2021, (iii) increasing the limitation on interest expense deductibility for 2019 and 2020, (iv) accelerating available refunds for minimum tax credit carryforwards, modifying limitations on charitable contributions during 2020, and (v) delaying the payment of employer payroll taxes. Entergy Louisiana’s member’s equity by $268 million. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussiondeferred approximately $64 million of the business combination.2020 payroll tax payments, which will be payable in two installments of $32 million on December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2022.


Entergy Wholesale Commodities Restructuring


The tax classificationIn the third quarter 2018, Entergy completed a restructuring of the entityinvestment holdings in one of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant decommissioning trusts that owned FitzPatrick changedresulted in an adjustment to tax basis for the trust.The accounting standards provide that a taxable temporary difference does not exist if the tax law provides a means by which an amount can be recovered without incurrence of tax.The restructuring allows Entergy to recover assets from the trust without incurring tax.As such, the tax basis recognized resulted in the secondreversal of a deferred tax liability and reduction of income tax expense of approximately $107 million.

In the fourth quarter 2016.2019, two separate events occurred resulting in a reduction of tax expense of $174 million. In November 2019 an Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiary recognized a reduction in income tax expense of $18 million in connection with the accounting method on power contracts associated with the Palisades nuclear power station. Additionally, Entergy’s ownership of Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 was restructured. The change in tax classificationrestructuring required Entergy to recognize the plant’s nuclear decommissioning liability for income tax purposes resulting in a tax accounting permanent difference that reduced income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, by $238 million. The accrual of the nuclear decommissioning liability also required Entergy to recognize a gain for income tax purposes, a significant portion of which resulted in an increase in tax basis of the assets. Recognition of the gainIndian Point 2 and the increase in tax basis of the assets represents a tax accounting temporary difference. Entergy sold FitzPatrick on March 31, 2017. The removal of the contingencies regarding the sale of the plant and the receipt of NRC approval for the sale allowed Entergy to re-determine the plant’s tax basis. The re-determined basis resulted in a $44 million income tax benefit in the first quarter 2017.

In the second quarter 2017, Entergy changed the tax classification of legal entities that own Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants. The change in tax classification required Entergy to recognize the plants’Indian Point 3 nuclear decommissioning liabilities for income tax purposes resulting in a tax accounting permanent difference that reduced income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, by $373$156 million. The accrual of the nuclear decommissioning liabilities also required Entergy to recognize a gain for income tax purposes, a portion of which resulted in an increase in the tax basis of the assets. Recognition of the gain and the increase in the tax basis of the assets represents a tax accounting temporary difference.


Immediately prior to the restructuring, through its ownership of Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3, Entergy donated property to Stony Brook University and recognized an associated tax deduction resulting in a decrease to tax expense of $19 million.

In the fourth quarter 2020, Entergy’s ownership of Palisades was restructured.The restructuring required Entergy to recognize Palisades’ nuclear decommissioning liability for income tax purposes resulting in a tax accounting permanent difference that reduced income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, by
121

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




$9.2 million.The accrual of the nuclear decommissioning liability also required Entergy to recognize a gain for income tax purposes, a portion of which resulted in an increase in the tax basis of the assets.Recognition of the gain and the increase in the tax basis of the assets represents a tax accounting temporary difference.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities Tax Audit

A state income tax audit involving Entergy Wholesale Commodities was concluded during the third quarter 2018. Upon conclusion of the audit, subsidiaries within Entergy Wholesale Commodities reversed a portion of the provision for uncertain tax positions totaling approximately $23 million, net of tax and interest paid.

Tax Accounting Methods


In the fourth quarter 2015, System Energy and Entergy Louisiana adopted a new method of accounting for income tax return purposes in which the companies’their nuclear decommissioning costs will be treated as production costs of electricity includable in cost of goods sold. The new method resultsresulted in a reduction of taxable income of $1.2 billion for System Energy and $2.2 billion for EntergyEnergy Louisiana.


In conjunction with the 2014-2015 IRS audit discussed above, the IRS issued proposed adjustments concerning the nuclear decommissioning tax position allowing System Energy to include $102 million of its decommissioning liability in cost of goods sold, and Entergy Louisiana to include $221 million of its decommissioning liability in cost of goods sold. Entergy, System Energy, and Entergy Louisiana agreed to the proposed adjustments included in the RAR.

As a result of System Energy being allowed to include part of its decommissioning liability in cost of goods sold, System Energy and Entergy recorded a deferred tax liability of $26 million. System Energy also recorded federal and state taxes payable of $402 million.However, on a consolidated basis, Entergy utilized tax loss carryovers to offset the federal taxable income adjustment and did not record federal taxes payable as a result of the outcome of this uncertain tax position.

As a result of Entergy Louisiana being allowed to include part of its decommissioning liability in cost of goods sold, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy recorded a deferred tax liability of $60 million. Both Entergy Louisiana and Entergy utilized tax loss carryovers to offset the taxable income adjustment and accordingly did not record taxes payable as a result of the outcome of this uncertain tax position.

The partial disallowance of this uncertain tax position to include the decommissioning liability in cost of goods sold resulted in a $1.5 billion decrease in the balance of unrecognized tax benefits related to federal and state taxes for Entergy. Additionally, both System Energy and Entergy Louisiana recorded a reduction to their balances of unrecognized tax benefits for federal and state taxes of $461 million and $1.1 billion, respectively.

Entergy Arkansas adopted the same method of accounting for its nuclear decommissioning costs which resulted in a $1.8 billion reduction in taxable income on its 2018 tax return.

The tax treatment of Entergy Louisiana’s accrued regulatory liabilities associated with the Vidalia purchased power agreement and business combination guaranteed customer credits, which are discussed further in Note 2, has been resolved with the IRS in a manner that results in a $190 million increase to previously reported taxable income. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy utilized tax loss carryovers to offset the taxable income adjustment, however, which allowed both Entergy Louisiana and Entergy to reduce their balances of federal and state unrecognized tax benefits by $74 million.

In 2016, Entergy Louisiana elected mark-to-market income tax treatment for various wholesale electric power purchase and sale agreements, including Entergy Louisiana’s contract to purchase electricity from the Vidalia hydroelectric facility and from System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The election resulted in a $2.2

121
122

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



$2.2 billion deductible temporary difference. In 2017, Entergy New Orleans also elected mark-to-market income tax treatment with respect to the Unit Power Sales Agreement resultingfor wholesale electric contracts which resulted in a $1.1 billion deductible temporary difference. In 2018, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi accrued deductible temporary differences related to mark-to-market tax accounting for wholesale electric contracts of $2.1 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively. Additionally, in 2020, Entergy Texas elected mark-to-market income tax treatment for wholesale electric power purchase and sale agreements which resulted in a $2.5 billion deductible temporary difference.


Accounting PronouncementsEntergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi Internal Restructuring


In the firstfourth quarter 2017,2018, Entergy implemented ASU No. 2016-09, “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): ImprovementsArkansas and Entergy Mississippi became wholly-owned subsidiaries of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC. The change in ownership required Entergy to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting.”recognize Entergy will now prospectivelyArkansas’s nuclear decommissioning liabilities for income tax purposes resulting in a tax accounting permanent difference that reduced income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, by $165 million. The accrual of the nuclear decommissioning liabilities also required Entergy to recognize alla gain for income tax purposes, a portion of which resulted in an increase in the tax basis of the assets. Recognition of the gain and the increase in the tax basis of the assets represents a tax accounting temporary difference. Additionally, Entergy recorded a $5 million reduction of income tax expense associated with state income tax effects resulting in a total reduction of income tax expense of $170 million from the restructuring. Entergy recorded a regulatory liability of $40 million ($30 million net-of-tax) which partially offsets the reduction of income tax expense. Entergy Arkansas’s member’s equity increased by $94 million as a result of the restructuring. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the internal restructuring.

Arkansas Corporate Income Tax Rate Reduction

In April 2019 the State of Arkansas enacted corporate income tax law changes that phase in an Arkansas tax rate reduction from the current rate of 6.5% to 6.2% in 2021 and 5.9% in 2022.  The rate reduction will eventually reduce Entergy Arkansas’s combined federal and state applicable tax rate by less than 0.5% once fully adopted.  As a result of the rate reduction, Entergy Arkansas computed a final regulatory liability for income taxes of approximately $21 million, which includes a tax gross-up related to share-based payments through the treatment of income statement. Intaxes in the retail and wholesale ratemaking formulas. During the first quarter 2017,of 2021, Entergy Arkansas refunded $7.5 million to Arkansas retail customers which represents the retail portion of the $21 million referenced above offset by the effect of adjustments to the regulatory liability for TCJA excess accumulated deferred income taxes. The Arkansas tax law enactment also phases in an increase to the net operating loss carryover period from five to ten years.

Consolidated Income Tax Return of Entergy Corporation

In September 2019, Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC and its regulated, wholly-owned subsidiaries including Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans, became eligible to and joined the Entergy Corporation consolidated federal income tax group.  As a result of these four Utility operating companies re-joining the Entergy Corporation consolidated tax return group, Entergy was able to recognize a $41 million deferred tax asset associated with a previously unrecognized Arkansas net operating loss carryover.

Additionally, in September 2019, Entergy Texas issued $35 million of 5.375% Series A preferred stock option expirations, along with other stock compensation activity, resulteda liquidation value of $25 per share resulting in the write-offdisaffiliation and de-consolidation of $11.5 millionEntergy Texas from the consolidated federal income tax return of deferred tax assets. Entergy’s stock-based compensation plans are discussed inEntergy Corporation.  These changes will not affect the accrual or allocation of income taxes for the Registrant Subsidiaries. See Note 126 to the financial statements.statements for discussion of the preferred stock issuance.



123

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Vermont Yankee

The Vermont Yankee transaction resulted in Entergy generating a net deferred tax asset in January 2019.  The deferred tax asset could not be fully realized by Entergy in the first quarter 2019; accordingly, Entergy accrued a net tax expense of $29 million on the disposition of Vermont Yankee. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Vermont Yankee transaction.

Stock Compensation

In accordance with stock compensation accounting rules, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries recognized excess tax deductions as a reduction of income tax expense in the first quarter 2020. Due to the vesting and exercise of certain Entergy stock-based awards, Entergy recorded a permanent tax reduction of approximately $24.7 million, including $4.8 million for Entergy Arkansas, $8.6 million for Entergy Louisiana, $2.7 million for Entergy Mississippi, $1.5 million for Entergy New Orleans, $2.7 million for Entergy Texas, and $1.3 million for System Energy.


NOTE 4.  REVOLVING CREDIT FACILITIES, LINES OF CREDIT, AND SHORT-TERM BORROWINGS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Entergy Corporation has in place a credit facility that has a borrowing capacity of $3.5 billion and expires in August 2022.September 2024.  The facility permitsincludes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against $20 million of the total borrowing capacity of the credit facility.  The commitment fee is currently 0.225% of the undrawn commitment amount.  Commitment fees and interest rates on loans under the credit facility can fluctuate depending on the senior unsecured debt ratings of Entergy Corporation.  The weighted average interest rate for the year ended December 31, 20172020 was 2.55%2.35% on the drawn portion of the facility.  Following is a summary of the borrowings outstanding and capacity available under the facility as of December 31, 2017.2020.
CapacityBorrowingsLetters of CreditCapacity Available
(In Millions)
$3,500$165$6$3,329
Capacity Borrowings Letters of Credit Capacity Available
(In Millions)
$3,500 $210 $6 $3,284


Entergy Corporation’s credit facility requires Entergy to maintain a consolidated debt ratio, as defined, of 65% or less of its total capitalization.  Entergy is in compliance with this covenant.  If Entergy fails to meet this ratio, or if Entergy Corporation or one of the Utility operating companies (except Entergy New Orleans) defaults on other indebtedness or is in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, an acceleration of the facility maturity date may occur.


Entergy Corporation has a commercial paper program with a Board-approved program limit of up to$2 billion.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, Entergy Corporation had $1.467$1.627 billion of commercial paper outstanding.  The weighted-average interest rate for the year ended December 31, 20172020 was 1.49%1.39%.



122
124

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each had credit facilities available as of December 31, 20172020 as follows:
CompanyExpiration DateAmount of FacilityInterest Rate (a) Amount Drawn as of December 31, 2020Letters of Credit Outstanding as of December 31, 2020
Entergy ArkansasApril 2021$25 million (b)1.27%00
Entergy ArkansasSeptember 2024$150 million (c)1.27%00
Entergy LouisianaSeptember 2024$350 million (c)1.27%00
Entergy MississippiApril 2021$10 million (d)1.65%00
Entergy MississippiApril 2021$35 million (d)1.65%00
Entergy MississippiApril 2021$37.5 million (d)1.65%00
Entergy New OrleansNovember 2021$25 million (c)1.42%0$0.8 million
Entergy TexasSeptember 2024$150 million (c)1.65%0$1.3 million
CompanyExpiration DateAmount of FacilityInterest Rate (a) Amount Drawn as of December 31, 2017Letters of Credit Outstanding as of December 31, 2017
Entergy ArkansasApril 2018$20 million (b)2.82%
Entergy ArkansasAugust 2022$150 million (c)2.82%
Entergy LouisianaAugust 2022$350 million (c)2.82%$9.1 million
Entergy MississippiMay 2018$10 million (d)3.07%
Entergy MississippiMay 2018$20 million (d)3.07%
Entergy MississippiMay 2018$35 million (d)3.07%
Entergy MississippiMay 2018$37.5 million (d)3.07%
Entergy New OrleansNovember 2018$25 million (c)3.04%$0.8 million
Entergy TexasAugust 2022$150 million (c)3.07%$25.6 million


(a)The interest rate is the estimated interest rate as of December 31, 2020 that would have been applied to outstanding borrowings under the facility.
(a)The interest rate is the estimated interest rate as of December 31, 2017 that would have been applied to outstanding borrowings under the facility.
(b)Borrowings under this Entergy Arkansas credit facility may be secured by a security interest in its accounts receivable at Entergy Arkansas’s option.
(c)The credit facility permits the issuance of letters of credit against a portion of the borrowing capacity of the facility as follows: $5 million for Entergy Arkansas; $15 million for Entergy Louisiana; $10 million for Entergy New Orleans; and $30 million for Entergy Texas.  
(d)Borrowings under the Entergy Mississippi credit facilities may be secured by a security interest in its accounts receivable at Entergy Mississippi’s option. 

(b)Borrowings under this Entergy Arkansas credit facility may be secured by a security interest in its accounts receivable at Entergy Arkansas’s option.
(c)The credit facility includes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against a portion of the borrowing capacity of the facility as follows: $5 million for Entergy Arkansas; $15 million for Entergy Louisiana; $10 million for Entergy New Orleans; and $30 million for Entergy Texas.  
(d)Borrowings under the Entergy Mississippi credit facilities may be secured by a security interest in its accounts receivable at Entergy Mississippi’s option. 

The commitment fees on the credit facilities range from 0.075% to 0.275% of the undrawn commitment amount. Each of the credit facilities requires the Registrant Subsidiary borrower to maintain a debt ratio, as defined, of 65% or less of its total capitalization. Each Registrant Subsidiary is in compliance with this covenant.


In addition, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each entered into one or more uncommitted standby letter of credit facilities as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO. Following is a summary of the uncommitted standby letter of credit facilities as of December 31, 2017:
2020:
CompanyAmount of Uncommitted FacilityLetter of Credit FeeLetters of Credit Issued as of
December 31, 2017 2020
(a) (b)
Entergy Arkansas$25 million0.70%0.78%$1.01 million
Entergy Louisiana$125 million0.70%0.78%$29.72.2 million
Entergy Mississippi$4065 million0.70%0.78%$15.31 million
Entergy New Orleans$15 million1.00%$1.41 million
Entergy Texas$50 million0.70%$22.86.2 million


(a)As of December 31, 2017, letters of credit posted with MISO covered financial transmission right exposure of $0.2 million for Entergy Arkansas, $0.1 million for Entergy Mississippi, and $0.05 million for Entergy Texas. See Note 15 to the financial statements for discussion of financial transmission rights.

(a)     As of December 31, 2020, letters of credit posted with MISO covered financial transmission right exposure of $0.3 million for Entergy Louisiana, $0.2 million for Entergy Mississippi, $0.2 million for Entergy New Orleans, and $0.5 million for Entergy Texas. See Note 15 to the financial statements for discussion of financial transmission rights.
(b)    As of December 31, 2020, in addition to the $1 million MISO letter of credit, Entergy Mississippi has $1 million of non-MISO letters of credit outstanding under this facility.
125

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




The short-term borrowings of the Registrant Subsidiaries are limited to amounts authorized by the FERC. The current FERC-authorized limits for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy are effective through October 31, 2019.July 14, 2022. In addition to borrowings from commercial

123

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


banks, these companies may also borrow from the Entergy System money pool and from other internal short-term borrowing arrangements.  The money pool and the other internal borrowing arrangements are inter-company borrowing arrangements designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ dependence on external short-term borrowings.  Borrowings from internal and external short termshort-term borrowings combined may not exceed the FERC-authorized limits.  The following are the FERC-authorized limits for short-term borrowings and the outstanding short-term borrowings as of December 31, 20172020 (aggregating both internal and external short-term borrowings) for the Registrant Subsidiaries:

 AuthorizedBorrowings
 (In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas$250$0
Entergy Louisiana$450$0
Entergy Mississippi$175$17
Entergy New Orleans$150$10
Entergy Texas$200$0
System Energy$200$0

 Authorized Borrowings
 (In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas$250 $166
Entergy Louisiana$450 
Entergy Mississippi$175 
Entergy New Orleans$150 
Entergy Texas$200 
System Energy$200 
Vermont Yankee Credit Facility (Entergy Corporation)


In January 2019, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Credit Facilities

was transferred to NorthStar and its credit facility was assumed by Entergy Assets Management Operations, LLC (formerly Vermont Yankee Asset Retirement, LLC), Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee has aYankee’s parent company that remains an Entergy subsidiary after the transfer. The credit facility guaranteed by Entergy Corporation withhas a borrowing capacity of $145$139 million thatand expires in November 2020. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee does not have the ability to issue letters of credit against the credit facility. This facility provides working capital to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee for general business purposes including, without limitation, the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee.December 2021. The commitment fee is currently 0.20% of the undrawn commitment amount.  As of December 31, 2017, $1042020, $139 million in cash borrowings were outstanding under the credit facility.  The weighted average interest rate for the year ended December 31, 20172020 was 2.64%2.46% on the drawn portion of the facility.

See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the transfer of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee also had an uncommitted credit facility guaranteed by Entergy Corporationto NorthStar.
with a borrowing capacity of $85 million that expired in January 2018.  As of December 31, 2017, there were no cash borrowings outstanding under the credit facility. The estimated interest rate for the year ended December 31, 2017 would have been 3.07% on the drawn portion of the facility.

Variable Interest Entities (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy)


See Note 17 to the financial statements for a discussion of the consolidation of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities (VIE).  To finance the acquisition and ownership of nuclear fuel, the nuclear fuel company VIEs have credit facilities and three of the four VIEs also issue commercial paper, details of which follow as of December 31, 2017:2020:
CompanyExpiration DateAmount of FacilityWeighted Average Interest Rate on Borrowings (a)Amount Outstanding as of December 31, 2020
 (Dollars in Millions)
Entergy Arkansas VIESeptember 2022$801.94%$12.2
Entergy Louisiana River Bend VIESeptember 2022$1051.95%$18.9
Entergy Louisiana Waterford VIESeptember 2022$1051.72%$39.3
System Energy VIESeptember 2022$1201.63%$0

(a)Includes letter of credit fees and bank fronting fees on commercial paper issuances by the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy. The
126
Company Expiration Date Amount of Facility Weighted Average Interest Rate on Borrowings (a) Amount Outstanding as of December 31, 2017
  (Dollars in Millions)
Entergy Arkansas VIE May 2019 $80 2.87% 
$74.9 (b)
Entergy Louisiana River Bend VIE May 2019 $105 2.38% 
$65.7
Entergy Louisiana Waterford VIE May 2019 $85 2.64% 
$79.9 (c)
System Energy VIE May 2019 $120 2.52% 
$67.8 (d)

(a)Includes letter of credit fees and bank fronting fees on commercial paper issuances by the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy. The nuclear fuel

124

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



nuclear fuel company variable interest entity for Entergy Louisiana River Bend does not issue commercial paper, but borrows directly on its bank credit facility.
(b)Includes borrowings on the credit facility and commercial paper. Commercial paper is classified as a current liability and the amount outstanding for Entergy Arkansas VIE as of December 31, 2017 was $50 million.
(c)Includes borrowings on the credit facility and commercial paper. Commercial paper is classified as a current liability and the amount outstanding for Entergy Louisiana Waterford VIE as of December 31, 2017 was $43.5 million.
(d)Includes borrowings on the credit facility and commercial paper. Commercial paper is classified as a current liability and the amount outstanding for System Energy VIE as of December 31, 2017 was $17.8 million.


The commitment fees on the credit facilities are 0.10%0.125% of the undrawn commitment amount for the Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy VIEs. Each credit facility requires the respective lessee of nuclear fuel (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, or Entergy Corporation as guarantor for System Energy) to maintain a consolidated debt ratio, as defined, of 70% or less of its total capitalization. Each lessee is in compliance with this covenant.


The nuclear fuel company variable interest entities had notes payable that are included in debt on the respective balance sheets as of December 31, 20172020 as follows:
CompanyDescriptionAmount
Entergy Arkansas VIE3.65% Series L due July 2021$90 million
Entergy Arkansas VIE3.17% Series M due December 2023$40 million
Entergy Louisiana River Bend VIE3.38%2.51% Series RV due August 2020June 2027$70 million
Entergy Louisiana Waterford VIE3.92% Series H due February 2021 (a)$40 million
Entergy Louisiana Waterford VIE3.22% Series I due December 2023$20 million
System Energy VIE3.78%3.42% Series IJ due October 2018April 2021 (a)$85100 million
System Energy VIE2.05% Series K due September 2027$90 million


(a)    Redeemed in February 2021.

In accordance with regulatory treatment, interest on the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities’ credit facilities, commercial paper, and long-term notes payable is reported in fuel expense.


Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy each have obtained long-term financing authorizations from the FERC that extend through October 2019July 14, 2022 for issuances by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entities.





125
127

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






NOTE 5.  LONG - TERM DEBT (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Long-term debt for Entergy Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 consisted of:
Type of Debt and Maturity Weighted Average Interest Rate December 31, 2017 Interest Rate Ranges at December 31, Outstanding at December 31,Type of Debt and MaturityWeighted Average Interest Rate December 31, 2020Interest Rate Ranges at December 31,Outstanding at
December 31,
2017 2016 2017 20162020201920202019
       (In Thousands)    (In Thousands)
Mortgage Bonds          Mortgage Bonds     
2018-2022 4.39% 2.55%-7.125% 2.55%-7.125% 
$2,550,000
 
$2,550,000
2023-2027 3.72% 2.40%-5.59% 2.40%-5.59% 4,735,000
 3,765,000
2028-2031 3.06% 2.85%-3.25% 2.85%-3.25% 1,125,000
 1,125,000
2020-20242020-20243.23%0.62% - 5.59%2.55% - 5.59%$4,400,000 $3,575,000 
2025-20292025-20293.35%2.14% - 4.44%2.4% - 4.44%4,113,000 3,735,000 
2030-20402030-20403.38%1.6% - 4.52%3.05% - 4.52%2,552,000 1,590,000 
2044-2066 5.00% 4.70%-5.625% 4.70%-5.625% 2,960,000
 2,960,000
2044-20664.12%2.65% - 5.5%3.55% - 5.625%6,380,000 5,170,000 
Governmental Bonds (a)          Governmental Bonds (a)     
2017-2022 5.20% 2.375%-5.875% 1.55%-5.875% 179,000
 233,700
2021-20222021-20222.50%2.375% - 2.5%2.375% - 2.5%179,000 179,000 
2028-2030 3.45% 3.375%-3.50% 3.375%-3.50% 198,680
 198,680
2028-20303.45%3.375% - 3.5%3.375% - 3.5%198,680 198,680 
Securitization Bonds          Securitization Bonds     
2018-2027 3.79% 2.04%-5.93% 2.04%-5.93% 551,499
 669,310
2022-20272022-20273.59%2.04% - 5.93%2.04% - 5.93%177,522 302,145 
Variable Interest Entities Notes Payable (Note 4)        Variable Interest Entities Notes Payable (Note 4)    
2017-2023 3.48% 3.17%-3.92% 2.62%-4.02% 345,000
 555,000
2021-20272021-20272.45%2.05% - 3.92%3.17% - 3.92%450,000 360,000 
Entergy Corporation Notes          Entergy Corporation Notes     
due September 2020 n/a 5.125% 5.125% 450,000
 450,000
due September 2020n/a0%5.125%450,000 
due July 2022 n/a 4.00% 4.00% 650,000
 650,000
due July 2022n/a4.00%4.00%650,000 650,000 
due September 2025due September 2025n/a0.9%0800,000 
due September 2026 n/a 2.95% 2.95% 750,000
 750,000
due September 2026n/a2.95%2.95%750,000 750,000 
due June 2030due June 2030n/a2.80%0600,000 
due June 2050due June 2050n/a3.75%0600,000 
Entergy New Orleans Unsecured Term Loan due May 2022Entergy New Orleans Unsecured Term Loan due May 2022n/a3.00%3.00%70,000 70,000 
5 Year Credit Facility (Note 4) n/a 2.55% 2.23% 210,000
 700,000
5 Year Credit Facility (Note 4)n/a2.35%3.77%165,000 440,000 
Entergy New Orleans Credit Facility (Note 4)Entergy New Orleans Credit Facility (Note 4)n/a02.92%20,000 
Vermont Yankee Credit Facility (Note 4) n/a 2.64% 2.17% 103,500
 44,500
Vermont Yankee Credit Facility (Note 4)n/a2.46%3.93%139,000 139,000 
Entergy Arkansas VIE Credit Facility (Note 4) n/a 2.87%  24,900
 
Entergy Arkansas VIE Credit Facility (Note 4)n/a1.94%3.33%12,200 15,100 
Entergy Louisiana River Bend VIE Credit Facility (Note 4) n/a 2.38%  65,650
 
Entergy Louisiana River Bend VIE Credit Facility (Note 4)n/a1.95%3.23%18,900 70,300 
Entergy Louisiana Waterford VIE Credit Facility (Note 4) n/a 2.64%  36,360
 
Entergy Louisiana Waterford VIE Credit Facility (Note 4)n/a1.72%3.30%39,300 49,900 
System Energy VIE Credit Facility (Note 4) n/a 2.52%  50,000
 
System Energy VIE Credit Facility (Note 4)n/a1.63%3.34%31,600 
Long-term DOE Obligation (b)    183,435
 181,853
Long-term DOE Obligation (b)192,018 191,114 
Waterford 3 Lease Obligation (c) n/a  8.09% 
 57,492
Waterford Series Collateral Trust Mortgage Notes due 2017 (c) n/a  (d) 
 42,703
Grand Gulf Lease Obligation (c) n/a 5.13% 5.13% 34,356
 34,359
Grand Gulf Sale-Leaseback ObligationGrand Gulf Sale-Leaseback Obligationn/a34,336 34,346 
Unamortized Premium and Discount - Net     (13,911) (19,397)Unamortized Premium and Discount - Net  3,665 (16,124)
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs (126,033) (128,849)Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs(160,420)(143,502)
Other       12,830
 13,204
Other   5,575 12,096 
Total Long-Term Debt       15,075,266
 14,832,555
Total Long-Term Debt   22,369,776 17,873,655 
Less Amount Due Within One Year     760,007
 364,900
Less Amount Due Within One Year  1,164,015 795,012 
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year   
$14,315,259
 
$14,467,655
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year $21,205,761 $17,078,643 
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt (e)   
$15,367,453
 
$14,815,535
Fair Value of Long-Term DebtFair Value of Long-Term Debt $24,813,818 $19,059,950 
126
128

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




(a)Consists of pollution control revenue bonds and environmental revenue bonds, some of which are secured by collateral mortgage bonds.
(b)Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have contracts with the DOE for spent nuclear fuel disposal service.  The contracts include a one-time fee for generation prior to April 7, 1983.  Entergy Arkansas is the only Entergy company that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and includes the one-time fee, plus accrued interest, in long-term debt.
(c)See Note 10 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Waterford 3 lease obligation and Entergy Louisiana’s acquisition of the equity participant’s beneficial interest in the Waterford 3 leased assets and for further discussion of the Grand Gulf lease obligation.
(d)This note did not have a stated interest rate, but had an implicit interest rate of 7.458%.
(e)The fair value excludes lease obligations of $34 million at System Energy and long-term DOE obligations of $183 million at Entergy Arkansas, and includes debt due within one year.  Fair values are classified as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy discussed in Note 15 to the financial statements and are based on prices derived from inputs such as benchmark yields and reported trades.

(a)Consists of pollution control revenue bonds and environmental revenue bonds, some of which are secured by collateral mortgage bonds.
(b)Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have contracts with the DOE for spent nuclear fuel disposal service.  The contracts include a one-time fee for generation prior to April 7, 1983.  Entergy Arkansas is the only Entergy company that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and includes the one-time fee, plus accrued interest, in long-term debt.

The annual long-term debt maturities (excluding lease obligations and long-term DOE obligations) for debt outstanding as of December 31, 2017,2020, for the next five years are as follows:
 Amount
 (In Thousands)
2018
$760,000
2019
$857,679
2020
$898,500
2021
$960,764
2022
$1,304,431
 Amount
 (In Thousands)
2021$1,164,000 
2022$1,141,878 
2023$2,452,194 
2024$1,340,000 
2025$1,378,000 


In November 2000, Entergy’s non-utility nuclear business purchased the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 power plants in a seller-financed transaction. As part of the purchase agreement with NYPA, Entergy recorded a liability representing the net present value of the payments Entergy would be liable to NYPA for each year that the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 power plants would run beyond their respective original NRC license expiration date. In October 2015, Entergy announced a planned shutdown of FitzPatrick at the end of its fuel cycle. As a result of the announcement, Entergy reduced this liability by $26.4 million pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement. In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy. As part of the trust transfer agreement, the original decommissioning agreements were amended, and the Entergy subsidiaries’ obligation to make additional license extension payments to NYPA was eliminated. In the third quarter 2016, Entergy removed the note payable of $35.1 million from the consolidated balance sheet.

Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy have obtained long-term financing authorizations from the FERC that extend through October 2019.  Entergy Arkansas has obtained long-term financing authorization from the APSC that extends through December 2018.July 2022.  Entergy New Orleans has also obtained long-term financing authorization from the City Council that extends through June 2018, asJuly 2022. Entergy Arkansas has also obtained first mortgage bond/secured financing authorization from the City Council has concurrent jurisdiction with the FERC over such issuances.APSC that extends through December 2022.


Capital Funds Agreement

Pursuant to an agreement with certain creditors, Entergy Corporation has agreed to supply System Energy with sufficient capital to:

maintain System Energy’s equity capital at a minimum of 35% of its total capitalization (excluding short-term debt);


127
129

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




permit the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf;
pay in full all System Energy indebtedness for borrowed money when due; and
enable System Energy to make payments on specific System Energy debt, under a supplement to the agreement assigning System Energy’s rights in the agreement as security for the specific debt.

Long-term debt for the Registrant Subsidiaries as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 consisted of:
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
Entergy Arkansas  
Mortgage Bonds:  
3.75% Series due February 2021$350,000 $350,000 
3.05% Series due June 2023250,000 250,000 
3.7% Series due June 2024375,000 375,000 
3.5% Series due April 2026600,000 600,000 
4.0% Series due June 2028350,000 250,000 
4.95% Series due December 2044250,000 250,000 
4.20% Series due April 2049350,000 350,000 
2.65% Series due June 2051675,000 
4.90% Series due December 2052200,000 
4.75% Series due June 2063125,000 
4.875% Series due September 2066410,000 410,000 
Total mortgage bonds3,610,000 3,160,000 
Governmental Bonds (a):  
2.375% Series due 2021, Independence County (c)45,000 45,000 
Total governmental bonds45,000 45,000 
Variable Interest Entity Notes Payable and Credit Facility (Note 4):  
3.65% Series L due July 202190,000 90,000 
3.17% Series M due December 202340,000 40,000 
Credit Facility due September 2022, weighted avg rate 1.94%12,200 15,100 
Total variable interest entity notes payable and credit facility142,200 145,100 
Securitization Bonds:  
2.30% Series Senior Secured due August 20217,259 
Total securitization bonds7,259 
Other:  
Long-term DOE Obligation (b)192,018 191,114 
Unamortized Premium and Discount – Net6,938 1,664 
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs(30,638)(34,936)
Other1,989 2,007 
Total Long-Term Debt3,967,507 3,517,208 
Less Amount Due Within One Year485,000 
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year$3,482,507 $3,517,208 
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt$4,355,632 $3,747,914 
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
Entergy Arkansas    
Mortgage Bonds:    
3.75% Series due February 2021 
$350,000
 
$350,000
3.05% Series due June 2023 250,000
 250,000
3.7% Series due June 2024 375,000
 375,000
3.5% Series due April 2026 600,000
 380,000
4.95% Series due December 2044 250,000
 250,000
4.90% Series due December 2052 200,000
 200,000
4.75% Series due June 2063 125,000
 125,000
4.875% Series due September 2066 410,000
 410,000
Total mortgage bonds 2,560,000
 2,340,000
Governmental Bonds (a):    
1.55% Series due 2017, Jefferson County (d) 
 54,700
2.375% Series due 2021, Independence County (d) 45,000
 45,000
Total governmental bonds 45,000
 99,700
Variable Interest Entity Notes Payable and Credit Facility (Note 4):    
2.62% Series K due December 2017 
 60,000
3.65% Series L due July 2021 90,000
 90,000
3.17% Series M due December 2023 40,000
 40,000
Credit Facility due May 2019, weighted avg rate 2.87% 24,900
 
Total variable interest entity notes payable and credit facility 154,900
 190,000
Securitization Bonds:    
2.30% Series Senior Secured due August 2021 35,764
 49,548
Total securitization bonds 35,764
 49,548
Other:    
Long-term DOE Obligation (b) 183,435
 181,853
Unamortized Premium and Discount – Net 5,307
 984
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs (34,049) (34,357)
Other 2,042
 2,057
Total Long-Term Debt 2,952,399
 2,829,785
Less Amount Due Within One Year 
 114,700
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year 
$2,952,399
 
$2,715,085
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt (c) 
$2,865,844
 
$2,623,910



128
130

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



 20202019
 (In Thousands)
Entergy Louisiana  
Mortgage Bonds:  
3.95% Series due October 2020$0 $250,000 
4.8% Series due May 2021200,000 200,000 
3.3% Series due December 2022200,000 200,000 
4.05% Series due September 2023325,000 325,000 
0.62% Series due November 20231,100,000 
5.59% Series due October 2024300,000 300,000 
5.40% Series due November 2024400,000 400,000 
3.78% Series due April 2025110,000 110,000 
3.78% Series due April 2025190,000 190,000 
4.44% Series due January 2026250,000 250,000 
2.40% Series due October 2026400,000 400,000 
3.12% Series due September 2027450,000 450,000 
3.25% Series due April 2028425,000 425,000 
1.60% Series due December 2030300,000 
3.05% Series due June 2031325,000 325,000 
4.0% Series due March 2033750,000 750,000 
5.0% Series due July 2044170,000 170,000 
4.95% Series due January 2045450,000 450,000 
4.20% Series due September 2048900,000 600,000 
4.20% Series due April 2050525,000 525,000 
2.90% Series due March 2051650,000 
5.25% Series due July 2052200,000 
4.70% Series due June 2063100,000 
4.875% Series due September 2066270,000 270,000 
Total mortgage bonds8,690,000 6,890,000 
Governmental Bonds (a):  
3.375% Series due 2028, Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (c)83,680 83,680 
3.50% Series due 2030, Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (c)115,000 115,000 
Total governmental bonds198,680 198,680 
Variable Interest Entity Notes Payable and Credit Facilities (Note 4):  
3.38% Series R due August 202070,000 
3.92% Series H due February 202140,000 40,000 
3.22% Series I due December 202320,000 20,000 
2.51% Series V due June 202770,000 
Credit Facility due September 2022, weighted avg rate 1.95%18,900 70,300 
Credit Facility due September 2022, weighted avg rate 1.72%39,300 49,900 
Total variable interest entity notes payable and credit facilities188,200 250,200 
Securitization Bonds:  
2.04% Series Senior Secured due September 202310,980 34,185 
Total securitization bonds10,980 34,185 
Other:  
Unamortized Premium and Discount - Net(2,863)(17,372)
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs(61,132)(58,089)
Other3,586 6,065 
Total Long-Term Debt9,027,451 7,303,669 
Less Amount Due Within One Year240,000 320,002 
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year$8,787,451 $6,983,667 
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt$10,258,294 $7,961,168 

131
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
Entergy Louisiana    
Mortgage Bonds:    
6.0% Series due May 2018 
$375,000
 
$375,000
6.50% Series due September 2018 300,000
 300,000
3.95% Series due October 2020 250,000
 250,000
4.8% Series due May 2021 200,000
 200,000
3.3% Series due December 2022 200,000
 200,000
4.05% Series due September 2023 325,000
 325,000
5.59% Series due October 2024 300,000
 300,000
5.40% Series due November 2024 400,000
 400,000
3.78% Series due April 2025 110,000
 110,000
3.78% Series due April 2025 190,000
 190,000
4.44% Series due January 2026 250,000
 250,000
2.40% Series due October 2026 400,000
 400,000
3.12% Series due September 2027 450,000
 
3.25% Series due April 2028 425,000
 425,000
3.05% Series due June 2031 325,000
 325,000
5.0% Series due July 2044 170,000
 170,000
4.95% Series due January 2045 450,000
 450,000
5.25% Series due July 2052 200,000
 200,000
4.70% Series due June 2063 100,000
 100,000
4.875% Series due September 2066 270,000
 270,000
Total mortgage bonds 5,690,000
 5,240,000
Governmental Bonds (a):    
3.375 % Series due 2028, Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (d) 83,680
 83,680
3.50% Series due 2030, Louisiana Public Facilities Authority (d) 115,000
 115,000
Total governmental bonds 198,680
 198,680
Variable Interest Entity Notes Payable and Credit Facilities (Note 4):    
3.25% Series G due July 2017 
 25,000
3.25% Series Q due July 2017 
 75,000
3.38% Series R due August 2020 70,000
 70,000
3.92% Series H due February 2021 40,000
 40,000
3.22% Series I due December 2023 20,000
 20,000
Credit Facility due May 2019, weighted avg rate 2.38% 65,650
 
Credit Facility due May 2019, weighted avg rate 2.64% 36,360
 
Total variable interest entity notes payable and credit facilities 232,010
 230,000
Securitization Bonds:    
2.04% Series Senior Secured due September 2023 79,228
 100,972
Total securitization bonds 79,228
 100,972
Other:    
Waterford 3 Lease Obligation (Note 10) (e) 
 57,492
Waterford Series Collateral Trust Mortgage Notes due 2017 (Note 10) (f) 
 42,703
Unamortized Premium and Discount - Net (13,877) (14,917)
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs (48,540) (48,972)
Other 6,570
 6,833
Total Long-Term Debt 6,144,071
 5,812,791
Less Amount Due Within One Year 675,002
 200,198
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year 
$5,469,069
 
$5,612,593
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt (c) 
$6,389,774
 
$5,929,488


129

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






 20202019
 (In Thousands)
Entergy Mississippi  
Mortgage Bonds:  
3.1% Series due July 2023$250,000 $250,000 
3.75% Series due July 2024100,000 100,000 
3.25% Series due December 2027150,000 150,000 
2.85% Series due June 2028375,000 375,000 
4.52% Series due December 203855,000 55,000 
3.85% Series due June 2049435,000 435,000 
3.50% Series due June 2051170,000 
4.90% Series due October 2066260,000 260,000 
Total mortgage bonds1,795,000 1,625,000 
Other:  
Unamortized Premium and Discount – Net3,685 6,127 
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs(18,108)(16,998)
Total Long-Term Debt1,780,577 1,614,129 
Less Amount Due Within One Year
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year$1,780,577 $1,614,129 
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt$2,021,432 $1,709,505 

 20202019
 (In Thousands)
Entergy New Orleans  
Mortgage Bonds:  
5.10% Series due December 2020$0 $25,000 
3.9% Series due July 2023100,000 100,000 
3.0% Series due March 202578,000 
4.0% Series due June 202685,000 85,000 
4.51% Series due September 203360,000 60,000 
3.75% Series due March 204062,000 
5.0% Series due December 205230,000 30,000 
5.50% Series due April 2066110,000 110,000 
Total mortgage bonds525,000 410,000 
Securitization Bonds:
2.67% Series Senior Secured due June 202742,850 54,443 
Total securitization bonds42,850 54,443 
Other:  
3.0% Unsecured Term Loan due May 202270,000 70,000 
Credit Facility due November 2021, weighted avg rate 2.92%20,000 
Payable to associated company due November 203512,529 14,367 
Unamortized Premium and Discount – Net(91)(129)
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs(8,055)(7,775)
Total Long-Term Debt642,233 560,906 
Less Amount Due Within One Year1,618 26,838 
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year$640,615 $534,068 
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt$620,634 $523,846 

132
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
Entergy Mississippi    
Mortgage Bonds:    
6.64% Series due July 2019 
$150,000
 
$150,000
3.1% Series due July 2023 250,000
 250,000
3.75% Series due July 2024 100,000
 100,000
3.25% Series due December 2027 150,000
 
2.85% Series due June 2028 375,000
 375,000
4.90% Series due October 2066 260,000
 260,000
Total mortgage bonds 1,285,000
 1,135,000
Other:    
Unamortized Premium and Discount – Net (1,155) (766)
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs
 (13,723) (13,318)
Total Long-Term Debt 1,270,122
 1,120,916
Less Amount Due Within One Year 
 
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year 
$1,270,122
 
$1,120,916
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt (c) 
$1,285,741
 
$1,086,203

  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
Entergy New Orleans    
Mortgage Bonds:    
5.10% Series due December 2020 
$25,000
 
$25,000
3.9% Series due July 2023 100,000
 100,000
4.0% Series due June 2026 85,000
 85,000
5.0% Series due December 2052 30,000
 30,000
5.50% Series due April 2066 110,000
 110,000
Total mortgage bonds 350,000
 350,000
Securitization Bonds:    
       2.67% Series Senior Secured due June 2027 76,707
 87,307
Total securitization bonds 76,707

87,307
Other:    
Payable to Entergy Louisiana due November 2035 18,423
 20,527
Unamortized Premium and Discount – Net (206) (245)
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs
 (8,054) (8,595)
Total Long-Term Debt 436,870
 448,994
Less Amount Due Within One Year 2,077
 2,104
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year 
$434,793
 
$446,890
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt (c) 
$455,968
 
$455,459

130

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



 20202019
 (In Thousands)
Entergy Texas  
Mortgage Bonds:  
2.55% Series due June 2021$125,000 $125,000 
4.1% Series due September 202175,000 75,000 
3.45% Series due December 2027150,000 150,000 
4.0% Series due March 2029300,000 300,000 
1.75% Series due March 2031600,000 
4.5% Series due March 2039400,000 400,000 
5.15% Series due June 2045250,000 250,000 
3.55% Series due September 2049475,000 300,000 
5.625% Series due June 2064135,000 
Total mortgage bonds2,375,000 1,735,000 
Securitization Bonds:  
5.93% Series Senior Secured, Series A due June 202217,478 50,289 
4.38% Series Senior Secured, Series A due November 2023106,214 155,969 
Total securitization bonds123,692 206,258 
Other:  
Unamortized Premium and Discount - Net14,064 (4,814)
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs(19,048)(17,510)
Other4,022 
Total Long-Term Debt2,493,708 1,922,956 
Less Amount Due Within One Year200,000 
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year$2,293,708 $1,922,956 
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt$2,765,193 $2,090,215 

133
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
Entergy Texas    
Mortgage Bonds:    
7.125% Series due February 2019 
$500,000
 
$500,000
2.55% Series due June 2021 125,000
 125,000
4.1% Series due September 2021 75,000
 75,000
3.45% Series due December 2027 150,000
 
5.15% Series due June 2045 250,000
 250,000
5.625% Series due June 2064 135,000
 135,000
Total mortgage bonds 1,235,000
 1,085,000
Securitization Bonds:    
5.79% Series Senior Secured, Series A due October 2018 
 23,584
3.65% Series Senior Secured, Series A due August 2019 30,769
 74,899
5.93% Series Senior Secured, Series A due June 2022 110,431
 114,400
4.38% Series Senior Secured, Series A due November 2023 218,600
 218,600
Total securitization bonds 359,800
 431,483
Other:    
Unamortized Premium and Discount - Net (1,498) (1,579)
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs
 (10,366) (10,809)
Other 4,214
 4,312
Total Long-Term Debt 1,587,150
 1,508,407
Less Amount Due Within One Year 
 
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year 
$1,587,150
 
$1,508,407
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt (c) 
$1,661,902
 
$1,600,156


131

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






 20202019
 (In Thousands)
System Energy  
Mortgage Bonds:  
4.1% Series due April 2023$250,000 $250,000 
2.14% Series due December 2025200,000 
Total mortgage bonds450,000 250,000 
Governmental Bonds (a):  
2.5% Series due 2022, Mississippi Business Finance Corp.134,000 134,000 
Total governmental bonds134,000 134,000 
Variable Interest Entity Notes Payable and Credit Facility (Note 4):  
3.42% Series J due April 2021100,000 100,000 
2.05% Series K due September 202790,000 — 
Credit Facility due September 2022, weighted avg rate 1.63%31,600 
Total variable interest entity notes payable and credit facility190,000 131,600 
Other:  
Grand Gulf Sale-Leaseback Obligation34,336 34,346 
Unamortized Premium and Discount – Net(165)(144)
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs(2,897)(1,697)
Other
Total Long-Term Debt805,274 548,107 
Less Amount Due Within One Year100,015 10 
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year$705,259 $548,097 
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt$840,540 $565,209 

  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
System Energy    
Mortgage Bonds:    
4.1% Series due April 2023 
$250,000
 
$250,000
Total mortgage bonds 250,000
 250,000
Governmental Bonds (a):    
5.875% Series due 2022, Mississippi Business Finance Corp. 134,000
 134,000
Total governmental bonds 134,000
 134,000
Variable Interest Entity Notes Payable and Credit Facility (Note 4):    
4.02% Series H due February 2017 
 50,000
3.78% Series I due October 2018 85,000
 85,000
Credit Facility due May 2019, weighted avg rate 2.52% 50,000
 
Total variable interest entity notes payable and credit facility 135,000
 135,000
Other:    
Grand Gulf Lease Obligation 5.13% (Note 10) 34,356
 34,359
Unamortized Premium and Discount – Net (415) (503)
Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs (1,455) (1,727)
Other 2
 3
Total Long-Term Debt 551,488
 551,132
Less Amount Due Within One Year 85,004
 50,003
Long-Term Debt Excluding Amount Due Within One Year 
$466,484
 
$501,129
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt (c) 
$529,119
 
$529,520
(a)Consists of pollution control revenue bonds and environmental revenue bonds.

(b)Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have contracts with the DOE for spent nuclear fuel disposal service.  The contracts include a one-time fee for generation prior to April 7, 1983.  Entergy Arkansas is the only Entergy company that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and includes the one-time fee, plus accrued interest, in long-term debt.
(a)Consists of pollution control revenue bonds and environmental revenue bonds.
(b)Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have contracts with the DOE for spent nuclear fuel disposal service.  The contracts include a one-time fee for generation prior to April 7, 1983.  Entergy Arkansas is the only Entergy company that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and includes the one-time fee, plus accrued interest, in long-term debt.
(c)The fair value excludes lease obligations of $34 million at System Energy and long-term DOE obligations of $183 million at Entergy Arkansas, and includes debt due within one year.  Fair values are classified as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy discussed in Note 15 to the financial statements and are based on prices derived from inputs such as benchmark yields and reported trades.
(d)The bonds are secured by a series of collateral mortgage bonds.
(e)The interest rate as of December 31, 2016 was 8.09%. See Note 10 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s acquisition of the equity participant’s beneficial interest in the Waterford 3 leased assets in March 2016.
(f)This note did not have a stated interest rate, but had an implicit interest rate of 7.458%.

(c)The bonds are secured by a series of collateral mortgage bonds.

The annual long-term debt maturities (excluding lease obligations and long-term DOE obligations) for debt outstanding as of December 31, 2017,2020, for the next five years are as follows:

 
Entergy
Arkansas
 
Entergy
Louisiana
 
Entergy
Mississippi
 
Entergy
New Orleans
 
Entergy
Texas
 
System
Energy
 (In Thousands)
2018
$—
 
$675,000
 
$—
 
$2,077
 
$—
 
$85,000
2019
$24,900
 
$102,010
 
$150,000
 
$1,979
 
$530,769
 
$50,000
2020
$—
 
$320,000
 
$—
 
$26,838
 
$—
 
$—
2021
$520,764
 
$240,000
 
$—
 
$1,618
 
$200,000
 
$—
2022
$—
 
$200,000
 
$—
 
$1,326
 
$110,431
 
$134,000
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
(In Thousands)
2021$485,000 $240,000 $0 $1,618 $200,000 $100,000 
2022$12,200 $258,200 $0 $71,326 $17,478 $134,000 
2023$290,000 $1,455,980 $250,000 $101,306 $106,214 $250,000 
2024$375,000 $700,000 $100,000 $1,275 $0 $0 
2025$0 $300,000 $0 $79,140 $0 $200,000 


132
134

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Securitization Bonds

Entergy Arkansas Securitization Bonds


In June 2010 the APSC issued a financing order authorizing the issuance of bonds to recover Entergy Arkansas’s January 2009 ice storm damage restoration costs, including carrying costs of $11.5 million and $4.6 million of up-front financing costs.  In August 2010, Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Arkansas, issued $124.1 million of storm cost recovery bonds.  The bonds, havewith a coupon of 2.30%.  Although the principal amount iswas not due until August 2021, Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding expects to makemade principal payments on the bonds over the next three years in the amount of $14.1 million for 2018, $14.4 million for 2019, and $7.3 million for 2020. Within 2020, after which the proceeds, Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding purchased from Entergy Arkansas the storm recovery property, which is the right to recover from customers through a storm recovery charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds.  The storm recovery property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Arkansas balance sheet.  The creditors of Entergy Arkansas do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, including the storm recovery property, and the creditors of Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Arkansas has no payment obligations to Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding except to remit storm recovery charge collections.bonds were fully repaid.


Entergy Louisiana Securitization Bonds – Little Gypsy


In August 2011 the LPSC issued a financing order authorizing the issuance of bonds to recover Entergy Louisiana’s investment recovery costs associated with the canceled Little Gypsy repowering project.  In September 2011, Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding I, L.L.C., a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Louisiana, issued $207.2 million of senior secured investment recovery bonds.  The bonds have an interest rate of 2.04%.  Although the principal amount is not due until September 2023, Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding expects to make principal payments on the bonds over the next four years in the amountsamount of $22.3 million for 2018, $22.7 million for 2019, $23.2 million for 2020, and $11 million for 2021.2021, after which the bonds will be fully repaid.  With the proceeds, Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding purchased from Entergy Louisiana the investment recovery property, which is the right to recover from customers through an investment recovery charge amounts sufficient to service the bonds.  In accordance with the financing order, Entergy Louisiana will apply the proceeds it received from the sale of the investment recovery property as a reimbursement for previously-incurred investment recovery costs.  The investment recovery property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Louisiana balance sheet.  The creditors of Entergy Louisiana do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding, including the investment recovery property, and the creditors of Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana has no payment obligations to Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding except to remit investment recovery charge collections.


Entergy New Orleans Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Isaac


In May 2015 the City Council issued a financing order authorizing the issuance of securitization bonds to recover Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm restoration costs of $31.8 million, including carrying costs, the costs of funding and replenishing the storm recovery reserve in the amount of $63.9 million, and approximately $3 million of up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. In July 2015, Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding I, L.L.C., a company wholly owned and consolidated by Entergy New Orleans, issued $98.7 million of storm cost recovery bonds. The bonds have a coupon of 2.67%. Although the principal amount is not due until June 2027, Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding expects to make principal payments on the bonds over the next fivefour years in the amounts of $11 million for 2018, $11.2 million for 2019, $11.6 million for 2020, $11.9 million for 2021, and $12.2 million for 2022.2022, $12.5 million for 2023, and $6.2 million for 2024. With the proceeds, Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding purchased from Entergy New Orleans the storm recovery property, which is the right to recover from customers through a storm recovery charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. The storm recovery property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy New Orleans balance sheet. The creditors of Entergy New Orleans do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding, including the storm recovery property, and the creditors of Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding do not have recourse to the

133

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


assets or revenues of Entergy New Orleans. Entergy New Orleans has no payment obligations to Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding except to remit storm recovery charge collections.


135

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Rita


In April 2007 the PUCT issued a financing order authorizing the issuance of securitization bonds to recover $353 million of Entergy Texas’s Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs and up to $6 million of transaction costs, offset by $32 million of related deferred income tax benefits.  In June 2007, Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding I, LLC, a company that is now wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $329.5 million of senior secured transition bonds (securitization bonds) as follows:
Amount
(In Thousands)
Senior Secured Transition Bonds, Series A:
Tranche A-1 (5.51%) due October 2013
$93,500
Tranche A-2 (5.79%) due October 2018121,600
Tranche A-3 (5.93%) due June 2022 (a)114,400
Total senior secured transition bonds
$329,500

(a). As of December 31, 2017 the remaining amount outstanding on Tranche A-3 was $110.4 million.

Although the principal amount of each tranche is not due until the dates given above,2020, $17.5 million at 5.93% remain outstanding. Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding expects to make principal payments on the bonds over the next four years in the amountsamount of $29.2 million for 2018, $30.9 million for 2019, $32.8 million for 2020, and $17.5 million for 2021. All of the scheduled principal payments for 2018-2021 are for Tranche A-3. Tranche A-1 and Tranche A-2 have been paid.


With the proceeds, Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a transition charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds.  The transition property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Texas balance sheet.  The creditors of Entergy Texas do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding, including the transition property, and the creditors of Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Texas.  Entergy Texas has no payment obligations to Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding except to remit transition charge collections.


Entergy Texas Securitization Bonds - Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav


In September 2009 the PUCT authorized the issuance of securitization bonds to recover $566.4 million of Entergy Texas’s Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav restoration costs, plus carrying costs and transaction costs, offset by insurance proceeds.  In November 2009, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, LLC (Entergy Texas Restoration Funding), a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $545.9 million of senior secured transition bonds (securitization bonds), as follows:
Amount
(In Thousands)
Senior Secured Transition Bonds:
Tranche A-1 (2.12%) due February 2016
$182,500
Tranche A-2 (3.65%) due August 2019 (a)144,800
Tranche A-3 (4.38%) due November 2023218,600
Total senior secured transition bonds
$545,900

(a). As of December 31, 2017 the remaining amount outstanding on Tranche A-2 was $30.8 million.

134

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


Although the principal amount of each tranche is not due until the dates given above,2020, $106.2 million at 4.38% remain outstanding. Entergy Texas Restoration Funding expects to make principal payments on the bonds over the next fivetwo years in the amount of $45.8 million for 2018, $47.6 million for 2019, $49.8 million for 2020, $52 million for 2021 and $54.3 million for 2022. Of the scheduled principal payments for 2018, $30.8 million are for Tranche A-2 and $15 million are for Tranche A-3. All of the scheduled principle payments for 2019-2022 are for Tranche A-3. Tranche A-1 has been paid.


With the proceeds, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a transition charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds.  The transition property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Texas balance sheet.  The creditors of Entergy Texas do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, including the transition property, and the creditors of Entergy Texas Restoration Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Texas.  Entergy Texas has no payment obligations to Entergy Texas Restoration Funding except to remit transition charge collections.



Grand Gulf Sale-Leaseback Transactions

In 1988, in two separate but substantially identical transactions, System Energy sold and leased back undivided ownership interests in Grand Gulf for the aggregate sum of $500 million.  The initial term of the leases expired in July 2015.  System Energy renewed the leases for fair market value with renewal terms expiring in July 2036. At the end of the new lease renewal terms, System Energy has the option to repurchase the leased interests in Grand Gulf or renew the leases at fair market value.  In the event that System Energy does not renew or purchase the interests, System Energy would surrender such interests and their associated entitlement of Grand Gulf’s capacity and energy.

System Energy is required to report the sale-leaseback as a financing transaction in its financial statements.  As such, it has recognized debt for the lease obligation and retained the portion of the plant subject to the sale-leaseback on its balance sheet. For financial reporting purposes, System Energy has recognized interest expense on the debt balance and depreciation on the applicable plant balance.  The lease payments are recognized as principal and interest payments on the debt balance. However, operating revenues include the recovery of the lease payments because the transactions are accounted for as a sale and leaseback for ratemaking purposes.  Consistent
136

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

with a recommendation contained in a FERC audit report, System Energy initially recorded as a net regulatory asset the difference between the recovery of the lease payments and the amounts expensed for interest and depreciation and continues to record this difference as a regulatory asset or liability on an ongoing basis, resulting in a 0 net balance for the regulatory asset at the end of the lease term.  The amount was a net regulatory liability of $55.6 million as of December 31, 2020 and 2019.

As of December 31, 2020, System Energy, in connection with the Grand Gulf sale and leaseback transactions, had future minimum lease payments that are recorded as long-term debt, as follows, which reflects the effect of the December 2013 renewal:
 Amount
 (In Thousands)
  
2021$17,188 
202217,188 
202317,188 
202417,188 
202517,188 
Years thereafter189,063 
Total275,003 
Less: Amount representing interest240,667 
Present value of net minimum lease payments$34,336 


137

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




NOTE 6.   PREFERRED EQUITY (Entergy Corporation Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans)Texas)


The number of shares and units authorized and outstanding and dollar value of preferred stock, preferred membership interests, and non-controlling interest for Entergy Corporation subsidiaries as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are presented below.  All series
 Shares/Units
Authorized
Shares/Units
Outstanding
  
 202020192020201920202019
Entergy Corporation(Dollars in Thousands)
Utility:      
Preferred Stock or Preferred Membership Interests without sinking fund:      
Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, 7.5% Series (a)110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 $107,425 $107,425 
Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, 6.25% Series (b)15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 14,366 14,366 
Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, 6.75% Series (c)75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 73,370 73,370 
Entergy Texas, 5.375% Series1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 35,000 35,000 
Total Utility Preferred Stock or Preferred Membership Interests without sinking fund1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 230,161 230,161 
Entergy Wholesale Commodities:      
Preferred Stock without sinking fund:      
Entergy Finance Holding, Inc. 8.75% (d)250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 24,249 24,249 
Total Subsidiaries’ Preferred Stock or Preferred Membership Interests without sinking fund1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 $254,410 $254,410 


(a)In October 2015, Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC issued 110,000 units of $1,000 liquidation value 7.5% Series A Preferred Membership Interests, all of which are outstanding as of December 31, 2020. The distributions are cumulative and payable quarterly. These units are redeemable on or after January 1, 2036, at Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC’s option, at the Utilityfixed redemption price of $1,000 per unit. Dollar amount outstanding is net of $2,575 thousand of preferred stock are redeemable at the option of the related company.issuance costs.
  
Shares/Units
Authorized
 
Shares/Units
Outstanding
    
  2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016
Entergy Corporation       (Dollars in Thousands)
Utility:            
Preferred Stock or Preferred Membership Interests without sinking fund:            
Entergy Arkansas, 4.32%-4.72% Series 313,500
 313,500
 313,500
 313,500
 
$31,350
 
$31,350
Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, 7.5% Series (a) 110,000
 110,000
 110,000
 110,000
 107,425
 107,425
Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, 6.25% Series (b) 15,000
 
 15,000
 
 14,398
 
Entergy Mississippi, 4.36%-4.92% Series 203,807
 203,807
 203,807
 203,807
 20,381
 20,381
Entergy New Orleans, 4.36%-5.56% Series 
 197,798
 
 197,798
 
 19,780
Total Utility Preferred Stock or Preferred Membership Interests without sinking fund 642,307
 825,105
 642,307
 825,105
 173,554
 178,936
Entergy Wholesale Commodities:            
Preferred Stock without sinking fund:            
Entergy Finance Holding, Inc. 8.75% (c) 250,000
 250,000
 250,000
 250,000
 24,249
 24,249
Total Subsidiaries’ Preferred Stock without sinking fund 892,307
 1,075,105
 892,307
 1,075,105
 
$197,803
 
$203,185

(a)Dollar amount outstanding is net of $2,575 thousand of preferred stock issuance costs.
(b)Dollar amount outstanding is net of $602 thousand of preferred stock issuance costs.
(c)Dollar amount outstanding is net of $751 thousand of preferred stock issuance costs.

135

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


(b)In November 2017, Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC issued 15,000 sharesunits of $1,000 parliquidation value 6.25% Series B Preferred Membership Interests, all of which are outstanding as of December 31, 2017.2020. The distributions are cumulative and payable quarterly. These units are redeemable on or after February 28, 2038, at Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC’s option, at the fixed redemption price of $1,000 per share.unit. Dollar amount outstanding is net of $634 thousand of preferred stock issuance costs.

(c)In October 2015,November 2018, Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC issued 110,000 shares75,000 units of $1,000 parliquidation value 7.5%6.75% Series AC Preferred Membership Interests, all of which are outstanding as of December 31, 2017.2020. The distributions are cumulative and payable quarterly. These units are redeemable on or after January 1, 2036,February 28, 2039, at Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC’s option, at the fixed redemption price of $1,000 per share.unit. Dollar amount outstanding is net of $1,630 thousand of preferred stock issuance costs.

(d)In December 2013, Entergy Finance Holding, Inc. issued 250,000 shares of $100 par value 8.75% Series Preferred Stock, all of which are outstanding as of December 31, 2017.2020. The dividends are cumulative and payable quarterly. The preferred stock is redeemable on or after December 16, 2023, at Entergy Finance Holding, Inc.’s option, at the fixed redemption price of $100 per share. Dollar amount outstanding is net of $751 thousand of preferred stock issuance costs.
138

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

The number of shares and units authorized and outstanding and dollar value of preferred stock for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New OrleansTexas as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are presented below.  All series

 Shares
Authorized
and Outstanding
Call Price per
Share as of
December 31,
 20202019202020192020
Entergy Texas Preferred Stock  (Dollars in Thousands) 
Without sinking fund:     
Cumulative, $25 par value:     
5.375% Series (a)1,400,000 1,400,000 $35,000 $35,000 $0 
Total without sinking fund1,400,000 1,400,000 $35,000 $35,000  

(a)In September 2019, Entergy Texas issued $35 million of the Utility operating companies’5.375% Series A Preferred Stock, a total of 1,400,000 shares with a liquidation value of $25 per share, all of which are outstanding as of December 31, 2020. The dividends are cumulative and payable quarterly. The preferred stock areis redeemable on or after October 15, 2024 at the respective company’sEntergy Texas’s option, at the call prices presented.  a fixed redemption price of $25 per share.

Dividends and distributions paid on all of Entergy’sEntergy Corporation’s subsidiaries’ preferred stock and membership interests series aremay be eligible for the dividends received deduction.

Presentation of Preferred Stock without Sinking Fund

Accounting standards regarding non-controlling interests and the classification and measurement of redeemable securities require the classification of preferred securities between liabilities and shareholders’ equity on the balance sheet if the holders of those securities have protective rights that allow them to gain control of the board of directors in certain circumstances.  These rights would have the effect of giving the holders the ability to potentially redeem their securities, even if the likelihood of occurrence of these circumstances is considered remote.  The outstanding preferred stock of Entergy Texas has protective rights with respect to unpaid dividends but provides for the election of board members that would not constitute a majority of the board, and the preferred stock of Entergy Texas is therefore classified as a component of equity.

The outstanding preferred securities of Entergy Utility Holding Company (a Utility subsidiary) and Entergy Finance Holding (an Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiary), whose preferred holders have protective rights, are presented between liabilities and equity on Entergy’s consolidated balance sheets.  The preferred dividends or distributions paid by all subsidiaries are reflected for all periods presented outside of consolidated net income.


139
  
Shares
Authorized
and Outstanding
   
Call Price per
Share as of
December 31,
  2017 2016 2017 2016 2017
Entergy Arkansas Preferred Stock     (Dollars in Thousands)  
Without sinking fund:          
Cumulative, $100 par value:          
4.32% Series 70,000
 70,000
 
$7,000
 
$7,000
 
$103.65
4.72% Series 93,500
 93,500
 9,350
 9,350
 
$107.00
4.56% Series 75,000
 75,000
 7,500
 7,500
 
$102.83
4.56% 1965 Series 75,000
 75,000
 7,500
 7,500
 
$102.50
Total without sinking fund 313,500
 313,500
 
$31,350
 
$31,350
  

  
Shares
Authorized
and Outstanding
   
Call Price per
Share as of
December 31,
  2017 2016 2017 2016 2017
Entergy Mississippi Preferred Stock     (Dollars in Thousands)  
Without sinking fund:          
Cumulative, $100 par value:          
4.36% Series 59,920
 59,920
 
$5,992
 
$5,992
 
$103.86
4.56% Series 43,887
 43,887
 4,389
 4,389
 
$107.00
4.92% Series 100,000
 100,000
 10,000
 10,000
 
$102.88
Total without sinking fund 203,807
 203,807
 
$20,381
 
$20,381
  


136

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements





  
Shares
Authorized
and Outstanding
     Call Price per
Share as of
December 31,
  2017 2016 2017 2016 2017
Entergy New Orleans Preferred Stock    (Dollars in Thousands)  
Without sinking fund:          
Cumulative, $100 par value:          
4.36% Series (a) 
 60,000
 
$—
 
$6,000
 
$—
4.75% Series (a) 
 77,798
 
 7,780
 
$—
5.56% Series (a) 
 60,000
 
 6,000
 
$—
Total without sinking fund 
 197,798
 
$—
 
$19,780
  


(a)In November 2017, Entergy New Orleans redeemed its $6 million of 4.36% Series, $7.8 million of 4.75% Series, and $6 million of 5.56% Series of preferred membership interests as part of a multi-step internal restructuring.


NOTE 7.   COMMON EQUITY (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Common Stock


Common stock and treasury stock shares activity for Entergy for 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 is as follows:
 202020192018
 Common
Shares
Issued

Treasury
Shares
Common
Shares
Issued
 
Treasury
Shares
Common
Shares
Issued
 
Treasury
Shares
Beginning Balance, January 1270,035,180 70,886,400 261,587,009 72,530,866 254,752,788 74,235,135 
Issuances:      
Equity forwards settled— 8,448,171 — 6,834,221 — 
Employee Stock-Based Compensation Plans— (1,076,511)— (1,624,358)— (1,683,174)
Directors’ Plan— (19,543)— (20,108)— (21,095)
Ending Balance, December 31270,035,180 69,790,346 270,035,180 70,886,400 261,587,009 72,530,866 
 2017 2016 2015
 
Common
Shares
Issued
 

Treasury
Shares
 
Common
Shares
Issued
 
 
Treasury
Shares
 
Common
Shares
Issued
 
 
Treasury
Shares
Beginning Balance, January 1254,752,788
 75,623,363
 254,752,788
 76,363,763
 254,752,788
 75,512,079
Repurchases
 
 
 
 
 1,468,984
Issuances: 
  
  
  
  
  
Employee Stock-Based Compensation Plans
 (1,377,363) 
 (729,073) 
 (610,409)
Directors’ Plan
 (10,865) 
 (11,327) 
 (6,891)
Ending Balance, December 31254,752,788
 74,235,135
 254,752,788
 75,623,363
 254,752,788
 76,363,763


Entergy Corporation reissues treasury shares to meet the requirements of the Stock Plan for Outside Directors (Directors’ Plan), three Equity Ownership Plansthe four equity plans of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, and certain other stock benefit plans.  The Directors’ Plan awards to non-employee directors a portion of their compensation in the form of a fixed dollar value of shares of Entergy Corporation common stock.


In October 2010 the Board granted authority for a $500 million share repurchase program.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, $350 million of authority remains under the $500 million share repurchase program.


Dividends declared per common share were $3.50$3.74 in 2017, $3.422020, $3.66 in 2016,2019, and $3.34$3.58 in 2015.2018.


(System Energy)

System Energy paid its parent, Entergy Corporation, distributions out of its common stock of $21$56.5 million in 20172018.

Equity Forward Sale Agreements

In June 2018, Entergy marketed an equity offering of 15.3 million shares of common stock. In lieu of issuing equity at the time of the offering, Entergy entered into forward sale agreements with various investment banks. The equity forwards required Entergy to, at its election prior to June 7, 2019, either (i) physically settle the transactions by issuing the total of 15.3 million shares of its common stock to the investment banks in exchange for net proceeds at the then-applicable forward sale price specified by the agreements (initially $74.45 per share) or (ii) net settle the transactions in whole or in part through the delivery or receipt of cash or shares. The forward sale price was subject to adjustment on a daily basis based on a floating interest rate factor and $40 milliondecreased by other fixed amounts specified in 2016.the agreements.


In December 2018, Entergy physically settled a portion of its obligations under the forward sale agreements by delivering 6,834,221 shares of common stock in exchange for cash proceeds of $500 million. The forward sale price used to determine the cash proceeds received by Entergy was calculated based on the initial forward sale price of $74.45 per share as adjusted in accordance with the forward sale agreements. Entergy incurred approximately $728 thousand of common stock issuance costs with the settlement.
137
140

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




In May 2019, Entergy physically settled its remaining obligations under the forward sale agreements by delivering 8,448,171 shares of common stock in exchange for cash proceeds of $608 million. The forward sale price used to determine the cash proceeds received by Entergy was calculated based on the initial forward sale price of $74.45 per share as adjusted in accordance with the forward sale agreements. Entergy incurred approximately $7 thousand of common stock issuance costs with the settlement.

Entergy used the net proceeds for general corporate purposes, which included repayment of commercial paper, outstanding loans under Entergy’s revolving credit facility, and other debt.

Retained Earnings and Dividend RestrictionsDividends


Provisions withinEntergy implemented ASU No. 2016-01 “Financial Instruments (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities” effective January 1, 2018. The ASU requires investments in equity securities, excluding those accounted for under the articlesequity method or resulting in consolidation of incorporation relatingthe investee, to preferred stockbe measured at fair value with changes recognized in net income. Entergy implemented this standard using a modified retrospective method, and recorded an adjustment increasing retained earnings and reducing accumulated other comprehensive income by $633 million as of eachJanuary 1, 2018 for the cumulative effect of the unrealized gains and losses on investments in equity securities held by the decommissioning trust funds that do not meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment. See Note 16 to the financial statements for further discussion of effects of the new standard.

Entergy Arkansasimplemented ASU No. 2016-16, “Income Taxes (Topic 740): Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other Than Inventory” effective January 1, 2018. The ASU requires entities to recognize the income tax consequences of intra-entity asset transfers, other than inventory, at the time the transfer occurs. Entergy implemented this standard using a modified retrospective method, and recorded an adjustment decreasing retained earnings by $56 million as of January 1, 2018 for the cumulative effect of recording deferred tax assets on previously-recognized intra-entity asset transfers.

Entergy Mississippi could restrictadopted ASU No. 2018-02, “Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income,” in the paymentfirst quarter 2018. The ASU allows a one-time reclassification from accumulated other comprehensive income to retained earnings for certain tax effects resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that would otherwise be stranded in accumulated other comprehensive income. Entergy’s policy for releasing income tax effects from accumulated other comprehensive income for available-for-sale securities is to use the portfolio approach. Entergy elected to reclassify the $15.5 million of cash dividendsstranded tax effects in accumulated other comprehensive income resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to retained earnings ($32 million decrease) or the regulatory liability for income taxes ($16.5 million increase). Entergy’s reclassification only includes the effect of the change in the federal corporate income tax rate on accumulated other distributionscomprehensive income.

Entergy implemented ASU No. 2017-12 “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities” effective January 1, 2019. The ASU makes a number of amendments to hedge accounting, most significantly changing the recognition and presentation of highly effective hedges. Entergy implemented this standard using a modified retrospective method, and recorded an adjustment increasing retained earnings and increasing accumulated other comprehensive loss by approximately $8 million as of January 1, 2019 for the cumulative effect of the ineffectiveness portion of designated hedges on their commonnuclear power sales.

Entergy implemented ASU 2017-08 “Receivables (Topic 310): Nonrefundable Fees and preferred equity if such payment wereOther Costs” effective January 1, 2019. The ASU amends the amortization period for certain purchased callable debt securities held at a premium to occur when, or result in, a ratiothe earliest call date. Entergy implemented this standard using the modified retrospective approach, and recorded an adjustment decreasing retained earnings and decreasing accumulated other
141

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to total capitalizationFinancial Statements




comprehensive loss by approximately $1 million as of 25% or less.  January 1, 2019 for the cumulative effect of the amended amortization period.

Entergy Corporation received dividend payments and distributions from subsidiaries totaling $201$113 million in 2017, $1652020, $124 million in 2016,2019, and $615$27 million in 2015.2018.


Comprehensive Income


Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) is included in the equity section of the balance sheets of Entergy and Entergy Louisiana. The following table presents changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) for Entergy for the year ended December 31, 20172020 by component:
 Cash flow
hedges
net
unrealized
gain (loss)
Pension
and
other
postretirement
liabilities

Net
unrealized
investment
gain (loss)
Total
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
(In Thousands)
Beginning balance, January 1, 2020$84,206 ($557,072)$25,946 ($446,920)
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications60,928 (49,113)41,354 53,169 
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)(116,415)71,609 (10,650)(55,456)
Net other comprehensive income (loss) for the period(55,487)22,496 30,704 (2,287)
Ending balance, December 31, 2020$28,719 ($534,576)$56,650 ($449,207)

142

 Cash flow
hedges
net
unrealized
gain (loss)
 Pension
and
other
postretirement
liabilities
 
Net
unrealized
investment
gain (loss)
 Foreign
currency
translation
 Total
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 (In Thousands)
          
Beginning balance, January 1, 2017
$3,993
 
($469,446) 
$429,734
 
$748
 
($34,971)
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications28,602
 (104,029) 171,099
 (748) 94,924
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)(70,072) 42,376
 (55,788) 
 (83,484)
Net other comprehensive income (loss) for the period(41,470) (61,653) 115,311
 (748) 11,440
Ending balance, December 31, 2017
($37,477) 
($531,099) 
$545,045
 
$—
 
($23,531)

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

The following table presents changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) for Entergy for the year ended December 31, 20162019 by component:
 Cash flow
hedges
net
unrealized
gain (loss)
Pension
and
other
postretirement
liabilities

Net
unrealized
investment
gain (loss)
Total
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
(In Thousands)
Ending balance, December 31, 2018($23,135)($531,922)($2,116)($557,173)
Implementation of accounting standards(7,685)879 (6,806)
Beginning balance, January 1, 2019($30,820)($531,922)($1,237)($563,979)
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications191,147 (93,696)32,914 130,365 
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)(76,121)68,546 (5,731)(13,306)
Net other comprehensive income (loss) for the period115,026 (25,150)27,183 117,059 
Ending balance, December 31, 2019$84,206 ($557,072)$25,946 ($446,920)
 Cash flow
hedges
net
unrealized
gain (loss)
 Pension
and
other
postretirement
liabilities
 
Net
unrealized
investment
gain (loss)
 Foreign
currency
translation
 Total
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 (In Thousands)
          
Beginning balance, January 1, 2016
$105,970


($466,604)

$367,557


$2,028
 
$8,951
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications87,740
 (26,997) 68,465
 (1,280) 127,928
Amounts reclassified from
accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
(189,717) 24,155
 (6,288) 
 (171,850)
Net other comprehensive income (loss) for the period(101,977) (2,842) 62,177
 (1,280) (43,922)
Ending balance, December 31, 2016
$3,993
 
($469,446) 
$429,734
 
$748
 
($34,971)


138

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



The following table presents changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) for Entergy Louisiana for the year ended December 31, 2017:
2020:
Pension and Other

Postretirement Liabilities
(In Thousands)
Beginning balance, January 1, 20172020
$4,562 
($48,442)
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications3,4623,002 
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)(1,420(3,237))
Net other comprehensive income (loss) for the period2,042(235)
Ending balance, December 31, 20172020
$4,327 
($46,400)


143

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




The following table presents changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) for Entergy Louisiana for the year ended December 31, 2016:
2019:

Pension and Other

Postretirement Liabilities

(In Thousands)
Beginning balance, January 1, 20162019
($6,153)
($56,412)
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications8,92614,591 
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)(956(3,876))
Net other comprehensive income (loss) for the period7,97010,715 
Ending balance, December 31, 20162019
$4,562 
($48,442)


139

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Total reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (AOCI) for Entergy for the years ended December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are as follows:
 Amounts reclassified from AOCIIncome Statement Location
20202019
 (In Thousands) 
Cash flow hedges net unrealized gain (loss) 
Power contracts$147,554 $96,549 Competitive business operating revenues
Interest rate swaps(194)(194)Miscellaneous - net
Total realized gain (loss) on cash flow hedges147,360 96,355 
Income taxes(30,945)(20,234)Income taxes
Total realized gain (loss) on cash flow hedges (net of tax)$116,415 $76,121 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities   
Amortization of prior-service costs $20,769 $21,300 (a)
Amortization of loss(110,185)(83,246)(a)
Settlement loss(243)(25,155)(a)
Total amortization and settlement loss(89,659)(87,101)
Income taxes18,050 18,555 Income taxes
Total amortization and settlement loss (net of tax)($71,609)($68,546)
Net unrealized investment gain (loss)
Realized gain (loss)$16,851 $9,069 Interest and investment income
Income taxes(6,201)(3,338)Income taxes
Total realized investment gain (loss) (net of tax)$10,650 $5,731 
Total reclassifications for the period (net of tax) $55,456 $13,306 
144

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

  Amounts reclassified from AOCI Income Statement Location
  2017 2016  
  (In Thousands)  
Cash flow hedges net unrealized gain (loss)      
Power contracts 
$108,606
 
$293,268
 Competitive business operating revenues
Interest rate swaps (803) (1,395) Miscellaneous - net
Total realized gain (loss) on cash flow hedges 107,803
 291,873
  
  (37,731) (102,156) Income taxes
Total realized gain (loss) on cash flow hedges (net of tax) 
$70,072
 
$189,717
  
    
  
Pension and other postretirement liabilities  
  
  
Amortization of prior-service costs 
$26,251
 
$29,414
 (a)
Acceleration of prior-service cost due to curtailment 
 (1,045) (a)
Amortization of loss (86,002) (60,693) (a)
Settlement loss (7,544) (2,007) (a)
Total amortization (67,295) (34,331)  
  24,919
 10,176
 Income taxes
Total amortization (net of tax) 
($42,376) 
($24,155)  
    
  
Net unrealized investment gain (loss)   
  
Realized gain (loss) 
$109,388
 
$12,329
 Interest and investment income
  (53,600) (6,041) Income taxes
Total realized investment gain (loss) (net of tax) 
$55,788
 
$6,288
  
    
  
Total reclassifications for the period (net of tax) 
$83,484
 
$171,850
  


(a)These accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) components are included in the computation of net periodic pension and other postretirement cost. See Note 11 to the financial statements for additional details.


140

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Total reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (AOCI) for Entergy Louisiana for the years ended December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are as follows:
Amounts reclassified from AOCIIncome Statement Location
2020 2019 
(In Thousands)
Pension and other postretirement liabilities 
Amortization of prior-service costs $6,179  $7,349 (a)
Amortization of loss(1,557)(2,106)(a)
Settlement loss(243)(a)
Total amortization4,379 5,243 
Income taxes(1,142)(1,367)Income taxes
Total amortization (net of tax)3,237 3,876 
Total reclassifications for the period (net of tax) $3,237  $3,876 
  Amounts reclassified from AOCI Income Statement Location
  2017 2016  
  (In Thousands)  
       
Pension and other postretirement liabilities      
Amortization of prior-service costs 
$7,734
 
$7,786
 (a)
Amortization of loss (5,327) (6,281) (a)
Total amortization 2,407
 1,505
  
  (987) (549) Income taxes
Total amortization (net of tax) 1,420
 956
  
    
  
Total reclassifications for the period (net of tax) 
$1,420
 
$956
  

(a)These accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) components are included in the computation of net periodic pension and other postretirement cost. See Note 11 to the financial statements for additional details.
    


NOTE 8.  COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, and tax proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, and governmental agencies in the ordinary course of business.  While management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of such proceedings, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Entergy’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition.  Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements.


Vidalia Purchased Power Agreement


Entergy Louisiana has an agreement extending through the year 2031 to purchase energy generated by a hydroelectric facility known as the Vidalia project.  Entergy Louisiana made payments under the contract of approximately $122.9$132.7 million in 2017, $158.72020, $135.5 million in 2016,2019, and $146$137.6 million in 2015.2018.  If the maximum percentage (94%) of the energy is made available to Entergy Louisiana, current production projections would require estimated payments of approximately $129$141 million in 2018,2021, and a total of $1.68$1.41 billion for the years 20192022 through 2031.  Entergy Louisiana currently recovers the costs of the purchased energy through its fuel adjustment clause.


In an LPSC-approved settlement related to tax benefits from the tax treatment of the Vidalia contract, Entergy Louisiana agreed to credit rates by $11 million each year for up to 10 years, beginning in October 2002.  In
145

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




October 2011 the LPSC approved a settlement under which Entergy Louisiana agreed to provide credits to customers by crediting billings an additional $20.235 million per year for 15 years beginning January 2012.  Entergy Louisiana recorded a regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect this obligation.  The settlement agreement allowed for an adjustment to the credits if, among other things, there was a change in the applicable federal or state income tax rate. As a result of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, and the lowering of the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, the Vidalia purchased power regulatory liability was reduced by $30.5 million, with a corresponding increase to Other regulatory credits on the income statement. The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed further in Note 3 to the financial statements.

141

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews


In March 2013, during a scheduled refueling outage at ANO 1, a contractor-owned and operated heavy-lifting apparatus collapsed while moving the generator stator out of the turbine building.  The collapse resulted in the death of an ironworker and injuries to several other contract workers, caused ANO 2 to shut down, and damaged the ANO turbine building.  The total cost of assessment, restoration of off-site power, site restoration, debris removal, and replacement of damaged property and equipment was approximately $95 million.  Entergy Arkansas is pursuinghas pursued its options for recovering damages that resulted from the stator drop, including its insurance coverage and legal action. During 2014, Entergy Arkansas collected $50 million in 2014 from Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), a mutual insurance company that provides property damage coverage to the members’ nuclear generating plants. Litigation remains pending.Entergy Arkansas also collected a total of $21 million in 2018 as a result of stator-related settlements.


In addition, Entergy Arkansas incurred replacement power costs for ANO 2 power during its outage and incurred incremental replacement power costs for ANO 1 power because the outage extended beyond the originally-planned duration of the refueling outage.  In February 2014 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request to exclude from the calculation of its revised energy cost rate $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs incurred in 2013 as a result of the ANO stator incident. The APSC authorized Entergy Arkansas to retain the $65.9 million in its deferred fuel balance with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident is available.

In March 2015, after several NRC inspections and regulatory conferences, arising from the stator incident, the NRC placed ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4, of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Entergy Arkansas incurred incremental costs of approximately $53 million in 2015 to prepare for the NRC inspections that began in early 2016 in order to address the issues required to move ANO back to “licensee response” or Column 1 of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Excluding remediation and response costs that resulted from the additional NRC inspection activities, Entergy Arkansas incurred approximately $44 million in 2016 and $7 million in 2017 in support of NRC inspection activities and to implement Entergy Arkansas’s performance improvement initiatives developed in 2015. In June 2018 the NRC moved ANO 1 and ANO 2 into the “licensee response column,” or Column 1, of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix.

In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed for a change in rates pursuant to its formula rate plan rider. In that proceeding, the APSC approved a settlement agreement agreed upon by the parties, including a provision that requires Entergy Arkansas to initiate a regulatory proceeding for the purpose of recovering funds currently withheld from rates and related to the stator incident, including the $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs and costs related to the incremental oversight previously noted, subject to certain timelines and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement.


Shortly after the stator incident, the NRC deployed an augmented inspection team to review the plant’s response.  In July 2013 a second team of NRC inspectors visited ANO to evaluate certain items that were identified as requiring follow-up inspection to determine whether performance deficiencies existed. In March 2014 the NRC issued an inspection report on the follow-up inspection that discussed two preliminary findings, one that was preliminarily determined to be “red with high safety significance” for Unit 1 and one that was preliminarily determined to be “yellow with substantial safety significance” for Unit 2, with the NRC indicating further that these preliminary findings may warrant additional regulatory oversight. This report also noted that one additional item related to flood barrier effectiveness was still under review. In June 2014 the NRC classified both findings as “yellow with substantial safety significance.”

In March 2015, after several NRC inspections and regulatory conferences, the NRC issued a letter notifying Entergy of its decision to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4, of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Placement into Column 4 requires significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site, including a review of the site’s root cause evaluation associated with flood barrier effectiveness and stator issues, an assessment of the effectiveness of the site’s corrective action program, an additional design basis inspection, a safety culture assessment, and possibly other inspection activities consistent with the NRC’s Inspection Procedure. Entergy Arkansas incurred incremental costs of approximately $53 million in 2015 to prepare for the NRC inspection that began in early 2016. Excluding remediation and response costs that may result from the additional NRC inspection activities, Entergy Arkansas also incurred approximately $44 million in 2016 in support of NRC inspection activities and to implement Entergy Arkansas’s performance improvement initiatives developed in 2015. A lesser amount of incremental expense is expected to be ongoing annually after 2016, until ANO transitions out of Column 4.

The NRC completed the supplemental inspection required for ANO’s Column 4 designation in February 2016, and published its inspection report in June 2016. In its inspection report, the NRC concluded that the ANO site is being operated safely and that Entergy understands the depth and breadth of performance concerns associated with ANO’s performance decline. Also in June 2016, the NRC issued a confirmatory action letter to confirm the actions Entergy Arkansas has taken and will continue to take to improve performance at ANO. The NRC will verify the

142

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


completion of those actions through quarterly follow-up inspections, the results of which will determine when ANO should transition out of Column 4. There have been no significant issues arising from the follow-up inspections.
Pilgrim NRC Oversight and Planned Shutdown

In September 2015 the NRC placed Pilgrim in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4, of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix due to its finding of continuing weaknesses in Pilgrim’s corrective action program that contributed to repeated unscheduled shutdowns and equipment failures. The preliminary estimate of direct costs of Pilgrim’s response to a planned NRC enhanced inspection ranges from $45 million to $60 million, of which $50 million has been incurred through the end of 2017 in operation and maintenance expense. The estimate does not include potential capital expenditures, which will be charged directly to expense when incurred, or other costs to address issues that may arise in the inspection.

Entergy determined in October 2015 that it would close Pilgrim no later than June 1, 2019 because of poor market conditions that led to reduced revenues, a poor market design that failed to properly compensate nuclear generators for the benefits they provide, and increased operational costs. The decision came after management’s extensive analysis of the economics and operating life of the plant following the NRC’s decision to place the plant in Column 4. Entergy determined in April 2016 that it intends to refuel Pilgrim in 2017 and then cease operations May 31, 2019. Pilgrim currently has approximately 677 MW of Capacity Supply Obligations in ISO New England through May 2019.

See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the impairment of the Pilgrim plant and related long-lived assets.

Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation


Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors.  Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.  The affected
146

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date.  Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense.  Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants.  Following the defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero0 until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014. Management cannot predict the potential timing or magnitude of future spent fuel fee revisions that may occur.


Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. Beginning in November 2003 these subsidiaries have pursued litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. Following are details of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 20162018, 2019, and 2020 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries’ litigation with the DOE.


143

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



In December 2015September 2018 the DOE submitted an offer of judgment to resolve claims in the second round Entergy Nuclear Generation Company case involving Pilgrim. The $62 million offer was accepted by Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in thethat amount of $81 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 andGeneration Company. Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick in the first round Indian Point 3/FitzPatrick damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016.October 2018. The effect in 2018 of recording the Indian Point 3 proceedsjudgment was a reduction to plant and other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense.expenses. The Indian Point 3Pilgrim damages awarded included $45$60 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $45$60 million, Entergy recorded $8 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Indian Point 3 plant asset balance by the remaining $37 million. The effect of recording the FitzPatrick proceeds was a reduction to plant and other operation and maintenance expense. The FitzPatrick damages awarded included $32 million related to costs previously capitalized and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $32 million, Entergy recorded $1$4 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense, a $10 million reduction to bring its remaining FitzPatrickPilgrim plant asset balance to zero,0, and the excess was recorded$46 million as a reduction to other operationsoperation and maintenance expense. See Note 14 for further discussion on the fair value analysis performed for FitzPatrick and the related impairment charge.expense because Pilgrim’s plant asset balance is fully impaired.


In April 2016August 2019 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partialfinal judgment in the amount of $42$19 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the firstsecond round River Bend damages case. Entergy Louisiana received payment from the U.S. Treasury in August 2016.September 2019. The effects of recording the final judgment in the third quarter 2016 were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The River Bend damages awarded included $17 million related to costs previously capitalized, $23 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $17 million, Entergy Louisiana recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy Louisiana reduced its River Bend plant asset balance by the remaining $14 million. In September 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a further judgment in the River Bend case in the amount of $5 million. Entergy Louisiana recorded a receivable for that amount, and subsequently received payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2017. The River Bend damages awarded included $2 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense and $3 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. In May 2017 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the first round River Bend damages case for $0.6 million, awarding certain cask loading costs that had not previously been adjudicated by the court.

In May 2016, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the DOE entered into a stipulation agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $19 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and against the DOE in the second round Vermont Yankee damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the proceeds was a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense and depreciation expense. The damages awarded included $15 million related to costs previously capitalized and $4 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $15 million, Entergy recorded $2 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. The remaining $13 million would have been recorded as a reduction to Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance, but was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance is fully impaired.

In June 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the amount of $49 million in favor of System Energy and against the DOE in the second round Grand Gulf damages case. System Energy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in August 2016. The effects of recording the judgment in the third quarter 2016 were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The amounts of Grand Gulf damages awarded related to System Energy’s 90% ownership of Grand Gulf included $16 million related to costs previously capitalized, $19 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $9 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $16 million, System Energy recorded $5 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. System Energy reduced its Grand Gulf plant asset balance by the remaining $11 million.


144

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


In July 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the amount of $31 million in favor of Entergy Arkansas and against the DOE in the second round ANO damages case. Entergy Arkansas received payment from the U.S. Treasury in October 2016. The effects2019 of recording the judgment were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, and other operation and maintenance expense. The ANORiver Bend damages awarded included $6 million related to costs previously capitalized, $19$12 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, $5 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense, and $2 million in costs previously capitalized.

In December 2019 the DOE submitted an offer of judgment to resolve claims in the third round ANO damages case.  The $80 million offer was accepted by Entergy Arkansas, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in that amount in favor of Entergy Arkansas and against the DOE. Entergy Arkansas received payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2020. The effects in 2019 of recording the judgment were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, depreciation expense, and taxes other than income taxes. The ANO damages awarded included $55 million in costs previously capitalized, $12 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, $12 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense, and $1 million related to costs previously recorded as taxes other than income taxes. Of the $55 million, Entergy Arkansas, recorded $5 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense.


In August 2016December 2019 the Entergy FitzPatrick Properties (formerly Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick) and the DOE entered into a settlement agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $53$7
147

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




million in favor of Entergy FitzPatrick Properties against the DOE in the second round FitzPatrick damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2020. Substantially all of the FitzPatrick damages awarded relate to costs previously expensed as asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges, and in December 2019 Entergy recorded $7 million as a reduction to asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges.

In April 2020 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the amount of $33 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the firstsecond round Waterford 3 damages case. Entergy Louisiana received payment from the U.S. Treasury in November 2016.June 2020. The effects of recording the judgment were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, and other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The Waterford 3 damages awarded included $41$20 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, $8 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expenses, and $5 million in costs previously capitalized.

In October 2020 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the amount of $40.5 million in favor of System Energy and against the DOE in the third round Grand Gulf damages case. System Energy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in December 2020. The effects of recording the judgment were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, and other operation and maintenance expense. The amounts of Grand Gulf damages awarded related to System Energy’s 90% ownership of Grand Gulf included $5 million related to costs previously capitalized, $10$21 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $2$10 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $41 million, Entergy Louisiana recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense.


In September 2016January 2021 the U.S. Court of Federal ClaimsClams issued a final judgment in the Entergy Nuclear Palisades case in the amount of $14 million.$23.1 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Palisades recorded a receivable for that amount, and subsequentlyagainst the DOE in the second round Palisades damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2017.February 2021. The effects of recording the judgment were reductions to plant, and other operation and maintenance expenses.expense, and taxes other than income taxes. The Palisades damages awarded included $11$15.7 million related to costs previously capitalized, and $3$7.1 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $11 million, Entergy recorded $1 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Palisades plant asset balance by the remaining $10 million. The Court previously issued a partial judgment in the case in the amount of $21 million, which was paid by the U.S. Treasury in October 2015.

In October 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the second round Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 case in the amount of $34 million. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 recorded a receivable for that amount,expenses, and subsequently received payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2017. The effects of recording the judgment were reductions to plant and other operation and maintenance expenses. The Indian Point 2 damages awarded included $14 million related to costs previously capitalized, $15 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense, $3 million related to previously recorded decommissioning expense, and $2$0.3 million related to costs previously recorded as taxes other than income taxes. Of the $14$15.7 million previously capitalized, Entergy recorded $3$9.1 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Indian Point 2 plant asset balance by the remaining $11 million.


Management cannot predict the timing or amount of any potential recoveries on other claims filed by Entergy subsidiaries, and cannot predict the timing of any eventual receipt from the DOE of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims damage awards.


Nuclear Insurance


Third Party Liability Insurance


The Price-Anderson Act requires that reactor licensees purchase insurance and participate in a secondary insurance pool that provides insurance coverage for the public in the event of a nuclear power plant accident.  The costs of this insurance are borne by the nuclear power industry.  Congress amended and renewed the Price-Anderson Act in 2005 for a term through 2025.  The Price-Anderson Act requires nuclear power plants to show evidence of financial protection in the event of a nuclear accident.  This protection must consist of two2 layers of coverage:


1.The primary level is private insurance underwritten by American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) and provides public liability insurance coverage of $450 million for each operating reactor (prior to January 1, 2017, the primary level of insurance was $375 million).  If this amount is not sufficient to cover claims arising from an accident,

1.The primary level is private insurance underwritten by American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) and provides public liability insurance coverage of $450 million for each operating reactor.  If this amount is not sufficient to cover claims arising from an accident, the second level, Secondary Financial Protection, applies.
2.Within the Secondary Financial Protection level, each nuclear reactor has a contingent obligation to pay a retrospective premium, equal to its proportionate share of the loss in excess of the primary level, regardless of proximity to the incident or fault, up to a maximum of approximately $137.6 million per reactor per incident (Entergy’s maximum total contingent obligation per incident is $1.101 billion).  This retrospective
145
148

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



premium is payable at a rate currently set at approximately $21 million per year per incident per nuclear power reactor.
3.In the secondevent that one or more acts of terrorism cause a nuclear power plant accident, which results in third-party damages – off-site property and environmental damage, off-site bodily injury, and on-site third-party bodily injury (i.e. contractors), the primary level provided by ANI combined with the Secondary Financial Protection applies. In 2016 the NRC approved Vermont Yankee’s exemption request to lower their limits from $375 millionwould provide approximately $14 billion in coverage.  The Terrorism Risk Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2007 created a government program that provides for up to $100 million effective April 15, 2016.
2.Within the Secondary Financial Protection level, each nuclear reactor has a contingent obligation to pay a retrospective premium, equal to its proportionate share of the loss in excess of the primary level, regardless of proximity to the incident or fault, up to a maximum of approximately $127.3 million per reactor per incident (Entergy’s maximum total contingent obligation per incident is $1.146 billion).  This retrospective premium is payable at a rate currently set at approximately $19 million per year per incident per nuclear power reactor.
3.In the event that one or more acts of terrorism cause a nuclear power plant accident, which results in third-party damages – off-site property and environmental damage, off-site bodily injury, and on-site third-party bodily injury (i.e. contractors), the primary level provided by ANI combined with the Secondary Financial Protection would provide approximately $13 billion in coverage.  The Terrorism Risk Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2007 created a government program that provides for up to $100 billion in coverage in excess of existing coverage for a terrorist event. Under current law, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act extends through 2020.

billion in coverage in excess of existing coverage for a terrorist event. Under current law, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act extends through 2027.
Currently, 102
The shutdown Big Rock Point facility maintains its NRC site specific statutory nuclear liability insurance requirement limit of $44.4 million.

Currently, 97 nuclear reactors are participating in the Secondary Financial Protection program.  Effective April 15, 2016 the NRC granted Vermont Yankee’s exemption request and it was allowed to withdraw from participation in this layer of financial protection. The Secondary Financial Protection program that provides approximately $13 billion in secondary layer insurance coverage to compensate the public in the event of a nuclear power reactor accident.  The Price-Anderson Act provides that all potential liability for a nuclear accident is limited to the amounts of insurance coverage available under the primary and secondary layers.


Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana each have two2 licensed reactors. System Energy has one1 licensed reactor (10% of Grand Gulf is owned by a non-affiliated company (Cooperative Energy) that would share on a pro-rata basis in any retrospective premium assessment to System Energy under the Price-Anderson Act).  The Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of 3 nuclear power reactors and the ownership of the shutdown Indian Point 1 reactor and Big Rock Point facility. Indian Point 2 was shutdown in April 2020 and has been defueled successfully as of May 2020. Indian Point 3 and Palisades are scheduled for shutdown in April 2021 and May 2022, respectively. The Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment previously included two nuclear power reactors that were sold in 2019. Vermont Yankee was sold in January 2019 and Pilgrim was sold in August 2019.


Property Insurance


Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries are members of NEIL, a mutual insurance company that provides property damage coverage, including decontamination and premature decommissioning expense,reactor stabilization, to the members’ nuclear generating plants.  The property damage insurance limits procured by Entergy for its Utility plants and Entergy Wholesale Commodity plants are in compliance with the financial protection requirements of the NRC.


The Utility plants’ (ANO 1 and 2, Grand Gulf, River Bend, and Waterford 3) property damage insurance limits are $1.5 billion per occurrence at each plant with an additional $100 million per nuclear property occurrence that is shared among the plants. Property damage from earthquake and volcanic eruptionearth movement is excluded from the first $500 million in coverage for all Utility plants. Property damage from flood is excluded from the first $500 million in coverage at ANO 1 and 2 and Grand Gulf. Property damage from flood is included in the first $500 million for Waterford 3 and River Bend.Bend includes a deductible of $10 million plus an additional 10% of the amount of the loss in excess of $10 million, up to a maximum deductible of $50 million. Property damage from wind for all of the Utility nuclear plants includes a deductible of $10 million plus an additional 10% of the amount of the loss in excess of $10 million, up to a total maximum deductible of $50 million.


The Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ plants (Pilgrim, Palisades,(Palisades, Indian Point Vermont Yankee,2, Indian Point 3, and Big Rock Point) have property damage insurance limits as follows: Vermont YankeeBig Rock Point - $50 million per occurrence; Big Rock Point - $500 million per occurrence; Pilgrim and Palisades - $1.115 billion per occurrence; and Indian Point - $1.6$1.06 billion per occurrence. For losses that are considered non-nuclear in nature, the property damage insurance limit at Pilgrim, Palisades and Indian Point is $500 million and at Vermont Yankee is $50 million. Property damage from wind and flood at Indian Point includes a deductible of $10 million plus an additional 10% of the amount of the loss in excess of $10 million, up to a maximum deductible of $50 million, butand property damage from earthquake and volcanic eruptionearth movement at Indian Point is excluded from the first $500 million.excluded. Property damage from wind, flood, and earth movement at PilgrimPalisades includes a deductible
149

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




of $10 million plus an additional 10% of the amount of the loss in excess of $10 million, up to a maximum

146

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


deductible of $50 million, but property damage from flood, earthquake, and volcanic eruption at Pilgrim is excluded from the first $500 million. Property damage from wind, flood, earthquake, and volcanic eruptionearth movement at Vermont Yankee and PalisadesBig Rock Point includes a deductible of $10 million plus an additional 10% of the amount of the loss in excess of $10 million, up to a maximum deductible of $50$14 million.


The valuevaluation basis of the insured property at the time of an accident at Pilgrim, Palisades and Vermont Yankee hasIndian Point have been changed from replacement cost to actual cash value.value, given the sites’ ages, anticipated ownership horizon and/or shutdown status.


In addition, Waterford 3 and Grand Gulf are also covered under NEIL’s Accidental Outage Coverage program.  Due to Entergy’s gradual exit from the merchant/wholesale power business, Entergy no longer purchases Accidental Outage Coverage for its non-regulated, non-generation assets. Accidental outage coverage provides indemnification for the actual cost incurred in the event of an unplanned outage resulting from property damage covered under the NEIL Primary Property Insurance policy, subject to a deductible period.  The indemnification for the actual cost incurred is based on market power prices at the time of the loss. For non-nuclear events, the maximum indemnity, under this policy, is limited to $327.6 million per occurrence. After the deductible period has passed, weekly indemnities for an unplanned outage, covered under NEIL’s Accidental Outage Coverage program, would be paid according to the amounts listed below:


100% of the weekly indemnity for each week for the first payment period of 52 weeks; then
80% of the weekly indemnity for each week for the second payment period of 52 weeks; and thereafter
80% of the weekly indemnity for an additional 58 weeks for the third and final payment period.

Under the property damage and accidental outage insurance programs, all NEIL insured plants could be subject to assessments should losses exceed the accumulated funds available from NEIL.  Effective April 1, 2017,2020, the maximum amounts of such possible assessments per occurrence were as follows:
Assessments
(In Millions)
Utility:
Entergy Arkansas$40.329.6
Entergy Louisiana$49.451.8
Entergy Mississippi$0.11
Entergy New Orleans$0.11
Entergy TexasN/A
System Energy$22.322.4
Entergy Wholesale Commodities$0


Potential assessments for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants are covered by insurance obtained through NEIL’s reinsurers.


NRC regulations provide that the proceeds of this insurance must be used, first, to render the reactor safe and stable, and second, to complete decontamination operations.  Only after proceeds are dedicated for such use and regulatory approval is secured would any remaining proceeds be made available for the benefit of plant owners or their creditors.


In the event that one or more acts of terrorism causes property damage under one or more or all nuclear insurance policies issued by NEIL (including, but not limited to, those described above) within 12 months from the date the first property damage occurs, the maximum recovery under all such nuclear insurance policies shall be an aggregate not exceedingexceeding $3.24 billion plus the additional amounts recovered for such losses from reinsurance, indemnity, and any other sources applicable to such losses.

147
150

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Non-Nuclear Property Insurance


Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program provides coverage on a system-wide basis for Entergy’s non-nuclear assets. The insurance program provides coverage for property damage up to $400 million per occurrence “each and every loss” basis in excess of a $20 million self-insured retention with the exception ofexcept for property damage caused by the following: earthquake shock, flood, and named windstorm, including associated storm surge. For earthquake shock and flood, the insurance program provides coverage up to $400 million on an annual aggregate basis in excess of a $40 million self-insured retention. For named windstorm and associated storm surge, the insurance program provides coverage up to $125 million on an annual aggregate basis in excess of a $40 million self-insured retention.  The coverage provided by the insurance program for the Entergy New Orleans gas distribution system is limited to $50 million per occurrence and is subject to the same annual aggregate limits and retentions listed above for earthquake shock, flood, and named windstorm, including associated storm surge.


Covered property generally includes power plants, substations, facilities, inventories, and gas distribution-related properties.  Excluded property generally includes transmission and distribution lines, poles, and towers. For substations valued at $5 million or less, coverage for named windstorm and associated storm surge is excluded.  This coverage is in place for Entergy Corporation, the Registrant Subsidiaries, and certain other Entergy subsidiaries, including the owners of the nuclear power plants in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment.subsidiaries.  Entergy also purchases $300 million in terrorism insurance coverage for its conventional property.  The Terrorism Risk Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2007 created a government program that provides for up to $100 billion in coverage in excess of existing coverage for a terrorist event. Under current law, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act extends through 2020.2027.

Prior to June 1, 2017, Entergy purchased additional coverage for some of its non-regulated, non-generation assets in addition to the insurance procured via the conventional property insurance program. The policy served to buy-down the conventional property insurance policy’s $20 million deductible and was placed on a scheduled location basis.  Due to Entergy’s gradual exit from the merchant/wholesale power business, effective June 1, 2017, Entergy no longer purchases this additional coverage ($20 million per occurrence) for some of its non-regulated, non-generation assets.


Employment and Labor-related Proceedings


The Registrant Subsidiaries and other Entergy subsidiaries are responding to various lawsuits in both state and federal courts and to other labor-related proceedings filed by current and former employees, recognized bargaining representatives, and certain third parties not selected for open positions or providing services directly or indirectly to one or more of the Registrant Subsidiaries and other Entergy subsidiaries.parties.  Generally, the amount of damages being sought is not specified in these proceedings.  These actions include, but are not limited to, allegations of wrongful employment actions; wage disputes and other claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act or its state counterparts; claims of race, gender, age, and disability discrimination; disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements; unfair labor practice proceedings and other administrative proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board or concerning the National Labor Relations Act; claims of retaliation; claims of harassment and hostile work environment; and claims for or regarding benefits under various Entergy Corporation-sponsored plans. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are responding to these lawsuits and proceedings and deny liability to the claimants.  Management believes that loss exposure has been and will continue to be handled so that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material, in the aggregate, to the financial position, results of operation, or cash flows of Entergy or the Utility operating companies.


Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)


Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts against primarily by contractor employees who worked in the 1940-1980s timeframe, primarily against Entergy Texas and to a lesser extent the other Utility operating companies, as premises owners of power plants, for damages causedEntergy Louisiana by allegedindividuals alleging exposure to asbestos.asbestos while working at Entergy facilities between 1955 and 1980. Entergy is being sued as a premises owner.  Many other defendants are named in these lawsuits as well.  Currently, there are approximately 200 lawsuits involving

148

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


approximately 500350 claimants.  Management believes that adequate provisions have been established to cover any exposure.  Additionally, negotiations continue with insurers to recover reimbursements.  Management believes that loss exposure has been and will continue to be handled so that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material, in the aggregate, to the financial position, results of operation, or cash flows of the Utility operating companies.



151

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Grand Gulf - Related Agreements

Capital Funds Agreement (Entergy Corporation and System Energy)

System Energy has entered into agreements with Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans whereby they are obligated to purchase their respective entitlements of capacity and energy from System Energy’s interest in Grand Gulf, and to make payments that, together with other available funds, are adequate to cover System Energy’s operating expenses.  System Energy would have to secure funds from other sources, including Entergy Corporation’s obligations under the Capital Funds Agreement, to cover any shortfalls from payments received from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under these agreements.


Unit Power Sales Agreement (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy)


System Energy has agreed to sell all of its share of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans in accordance with specified percentages (Entergy Arkansas-36%, Entergy Louisiana-14%, Entergy Mississippi-33%, and Entergy New Orleans-17%) as ordered by the FERC.  Charges under this agreement are paid in consideration for the purchasing companies’ respective entitlement to receive capacity and energy and are payable irrespective of the quantity of energy delivered.  The agreement will remain in effect until terminated by the parties and the termination is approved by the FERC, most likely upon Grand Gulf’s retirement from service.  In December 2016 the NRC granted the extension of Grand Gulf’s operating license to 2044. Monthly obligations are based on actual capacity and energy costs.  The average monthly payments for 20172020 under the agreement arewere approximately $19.5$15.7 million for Entergy Arkansas, $7.8$6.3 million for Entergy Louisiana, $17$13.8 million for Entergy Mississippi, and $9.4$7.6 million for Entergy New Orleans. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the complaintcomplaints filed with the FERC against System Energy seeking a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement.


Availability Agreement (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy)


Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans are individually obligated to make payments or subordinated advances to System Energy in accordance with stated percentages (Entergy Arkansas-17.1%, Entergy Louisiana-26.9%, Entergy Mississippi-31.3%, and Entergy New Orleans-24.7%) in amounts that, when added to amounts received under the Unit Power Sales Agreement or otherwise, are adequate to cover all of System Energy’s operating expenses as defined, including an amount sufficient to amortize the cost of Grand Gulf 2 over 27 years (See Reallocation Agreement terms below) and expenses incurred in connection with a permanent shutdown of Grand Gulf.  System Energy has assigned its rights to payments and advances to certain creditors as security for certain obligations.  Since commercial operation of Grand Gulf began, payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement have exceeded the amounts payable under the Availability Agreement.  Accordingly, no payments under the Availability Agreement have ever been required.  If Entergy Arkansas or Entergy Mississippi fails to make its Unit Power Sales Agreement payments, and System Energy is unable to obtain funds from other sources, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans could become subject to claims or demands by System Energy or its creditors for payments or advances under the Availability Agreement (or the assignments thereof) equal to the difference between their required Unit Power Sales Agreement payments and their required Availability Agreement payments.


149

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Reallocation Agreement (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and System Energy)


System Energy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans entered into the Reallocation Agreement relating to the sale of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf and the related costs, in which Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans agreed to assume all of Entergy Arkansas’s responsibilities and obligations with respect to Grand Gulf under the Availability Agreement.  The FERC’s decision allocating a portion of Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas supersedes the Reallocation Agreement as it relates to Grand Gulf.  Responsibility for any Grand Gulf 2 amortization amounts has been individually allocated (Entergy Louisiana-26.23%, Entergy Mississippi-43.97%, and Entergy New Orleans-29.80%) under the terms of the Reallocation Agreement.  However, the Reallocation Agreement does not affect Entergy Arkansas’s obligation to System Energy’s lenders under the assignments referred to in the preceding paragraph.  Entergy Arkansas would be liable for its share of such amounts if Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans were unable to meet their contractual obligations.  No payments of any
152

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

amortization amounts will be required so long as amounts paid to System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, including other funds available to System Energy, exceed amounts required under the Availability Agreement, which is expected to be the case for the foreseeable future.




NOTE 9. ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Accounting standards require companies to record liabilities for all legal obligations associated with the retirement of long-lived assets that result from the normal operation of the assets.  For Entergy, substantially all of its asset retirement obligations consist of its liability for decommissioning its nuclear power plants.  In addition, an insignificant amount of removal costs associated with non-nuclear power plants is also included in the decommissioning and asset retirement costs line item on the balance sheets.

These liabilities are recorded at their fair values (which are the present values of the estimated future cash outflows) in the period in which they are incurred, with an accompanying addition to the recorded cost of the long-lived asset.  The asset retirement obligation is accreted each year through a charge to expense, to reflect the time value of money for this present value obligation.  The accretion will continue through the completion of the asset retirement activity.  The amounts added to the carrying amounts of the long-lived assets will be depreciated over the useful lives of the assets.  The application of accounting standards related to asset retirement obligations is earnings neutral to the rate-regulated business of the Registrant Subsidiaries.


In accordance with ratemaking treatment and as required by regulatory accounting standards, the depreciation provisions for the Registrant Subsidiaries include a component for removal costs that are not asset retirement obligations under accounting standards.  In accordance with regulatory accounting principles, the Registrant Subsidiaries have recorded regulatory assets (liabilities) in the following amounts to reflect their estimates of the difference between estimated incurred removal costs and estimated removal costs expected to be recovered in rates:
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas$212.6$168.9
Entergy Louisiana$302.5($2.4)
Entergy Mississippi$107.3$80.8
Entergy New Orleans$63.2$52.9
Entergy Texas$115.3$42.5
System Energy$92.9$75.9
 December 31,
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas$176.9 $128.5
Entergy Louisiana($32.4) ($53.9)
Entergy Mississippi$91.6 $82.0
Entergy New Orleans$44.8 $40.1
Entergy Texas$55.2 $33.5
System Energy$67.9 $69.7


As of December 31, 2020 the regulatory asset for removal costs for the Utility operating companies includes amounts related to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration costs.



150
153

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






The cumulative decommissioning and retirement cost liabilities and expenses recorded in 20172020 and 20162019 by Entergy were as follows:
 Liabilities as
of December 31,
2019
 
 
Accretion
 
 
Spending
Liabilities as
of December 31,
2020
 (In Millions)
Entergy$6,159.2 $394.6 ($84.3)$6,469.5 
Utility    
Entergy Arkansas1,242.6 73.3 (1.7)1,314.2 
Entergy Louisiana1,497.3 76.0 1,573.3 
Entergy Mississippi9.7 0.6 (0.5)9.8 
Entergy New Orleans3.5 0.3 3.8 
Entergy Texas7.6 0.5 8.1 
System Energy931.7 37.2 968.9 
Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Big Rock Point40.3 3.3 (2.5)41.1 
Indian Point 1238.6 20.4 (12.4)246.6 
Indian Point 2829.0 69.4 (58.6)839.8 
Indian Point 3808.4 67.4 (6.4)869.4 
Palisades549.8 46.4 (2.1)594.1 
Other (a)0.5 0.5 
 
Liabilities as
of December 31,
2016
 
 
 
Accretion
 
Change in
Cash Flow
Estimate
 
 
 
Spending
 Dispositions 
Liabilities as
of December 31,
2017
 (In Millions)
Utility:           
Entergy Arkansas
$924.4
 
$56.8
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$981.2
Entergy Louisiana1,082.7
 57.8
 
 
 
 1,140.5
Entergy Mississippi8.7
 0.5
 
 
 
 9.2
Entergy New Orleans2.9
 0.2
 
 
 
 3.1
Entergy Texas6.5
 0.3
 
 
 
 6.8
System Energy854.2
 43.4
 (35.9) 
 
 861.7
Total2,879.4
 159.0
 (35.9) 
 
 3,002.5
            
Entergy Wholesale Commodities:         
Big Rock Point37.9
 3.1
 
 (2.1) 
 38.9
FitzPatrick714.3
(a)13.9
 
 (0.9) (727.3)(b)
Indian Point 1207.6
 17.7
 
 (7.7) 
 217.6
Indian Point 2653.1
 55.8
 
 (0.2) 
 708.7
Indian Point 3641.1
 53.5
 
 (0.1) 
 694.5
Palisades500.3
 41.3
 (68.7) (2.5) 
 470.4
Pilgrim602.3
 52.8
 
 (3.7) 
 651.4
Vermont Yankee470.5
 34.4
 
 (103.4) 
 401.5
Other (c)0.3
 
 
 
 
 0.3
Total3,827.4
 272.5
 (68.7) (120.6) (727.3) 3,183.3
            
Entergy Total
$6,706.8
 
$431.5
 
($104.6) 
($120.6) 
($727.3) 
$6,185.8






151
154

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



 Liabilities as
of December 31,
2018
 
 
Accretion
Change in
Cash Flow
Estimate
 
 
Spending
DispositionsLiabilities as
of December 31,
2019
 (In Millions)
Entergy$6,923.4 $414.0 $273.7 ($45.6)($1,406.3)$6,159.2 
Utility     
Entergy Arkansas1,048.4 68.0 126.2 1,242.6 
Entergy Louisiana1,280.3 69.5 147.5 1,497.3 
Entergy Mississippi9.2 0.5 9.7 
Entergy New Orleans3.3 0.2 3.5 
Entergy Texas7.2 0.4 7.6 
System Energy896.0 35.7 931.7 
Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Big Rock Point39.7 3.2 (2.6)40.3 
Indian Point 1227.9 19.5 (8.8)238.6 
Indian Point 2768.0 65.5 (4.5)829.0 
Indian Point 3750.6 62.5 (4.7)808.4 
Palisades508.0 42.9 (1.1)549.8 
Pilgrim816.5 44.1 (23.9)(836.7)(b)
Vermont Yankee567.9 1.7 (569.6)(b)
Other (a)0.4 0.1 0.5 

 
Liabilities as
of December 31,
2015
 Liabilities Incurred 
 
 
Accretion
 
Change in
Cash Flow
Estimate
 
 
 
Spending
 
Liabilities as
of December 31,
2016
 
 (In Millions) 
Utility:            
Entergy Arkansas
$872.3
 
$—
 
$53.6
 
$—
 
($1.5) 
$924.4
 
Entergy Louisiana1,027.9
 
 54.8
 
 
 1,082.7
 
Entergy Mississippi8.3
 
 0.4
 
 
 8.7
 
Entergy New Orleans2.7
 
 0.2
 
 
 2.9
 
Entergy Texas6.1
 
 0.4
 
 
 6.5
 
System Energy803.4
 
 50.8
 
 
 854.2
 
Total2,720.7
 
 160.2
 
 (1.5) 2,879.4
 
             
Entergy Wholesale Commodities: 

 

 

 

 
Big Rock Point28.0
 
 2.2
 10.1
 (2.4) 37.9
 
FitzPatrick
(d)696.2
 18.1
 
 
 714.3
(a)
Indian Point 1197.9
 
 17.1
 (0.3) (7.1) 207.6
 
Indian Point 2390.1
 
 33.0
 230.0
 
 653.1
 
Indian Point 3
(d)466.3
 12.1
 162.7
 
 641.1
 
Palisades342.0
 
 29.5
 128.8
 
 500.3
 
Pilgrim551.2
 
 48.4
 3.2
 (0.5) 602.3
 
Vermont Yankee560.0
 
 39.3
 
 (128.8) 470.5
 
Other (c)0.3
 
 
 
 
 0.3
 
Total2,069.5
 1,162.5
 199.7
 534.5
 (138.8) 3,827.4
 
             
Entergy Total
$4,790.2
 
$1,162.5
 
$359.9
 
$534.5
 
($140.3) 
$6,706.8
 
(a)    See “Coal Combustion Residuals” below for additional discussion regarding the asset retirement obligations related to coal combustion residuals management.

(b)    See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the sale of the Pilgrim plant to Holtec International in August 2019 and the sale of the Vermont Yankee plant to NorthStar in January 2019.
(a)The FitzPatrick asset retirement obligation was classified as held for sale within other non-current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the sale of the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon in March 2017.
(b)See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the sale of the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon in March 2017.
(c)
See “Coal Combustion Residuals” below for additional discussion regarding the asset retirement obligations related to coal combustion residuals management.
(d)
See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities” in “Nuclear Plant Decommissioning” below for additional discussion regarding the decommissioning agreements with NYPA and the associated asset retirement obligations.


Nuclear Plant Decommissioning


Entergy periodically reviews and updates estimated decommissioning costs.  The actual decommissioning costs may vary from the estimates because of the timing of plant decommissioning, regulatory requirements, changes in technology, and increased costs of labor, materials, and equipment.  As described below, during 20172019 and 2016,2018, Entergy updated decommissioning cost estimates for certain nuclear power plants. Entergy did not update decommissioning cost estimates in 2020.


Utility


In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liabilities for ANO 1 and ANO 2 as a result of a revised decommissioning cost study. The revised estimates resulted in a $126.2 million increase in its decommissioning cost liabilities, along with corresponding increases in the related asset retirement cost assets that will be depreciated over the remaining lives of the units.

In the second quarter 2017, System Energy2019, Entergy Louisiana recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liability for Grand GulfWaterford 3 as a result of a revised decommissioning cost study. The revised estimate resulted in a $35.9$147.5 million

152

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


reduction increase in its decommissioning cost liability, along with a corresponding reductionincrease in the related asset retirement cost asset that will be depreciated over the remaining useful life of the unit.

155

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements





Entergy Wholesale Commodities


In August 2013 the Board approved a plan to close and decommission Vermont Yankee at the end of 2014. Vermont Yankee submitted notification of permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor in January 2015 after final shutdown in December 2014. Vermont Yankee’s future certifications to satisfy the NRC’s financial assurance requirements will now be based on the site specific cost estimate, including the estimated cost of managing spent fuel, rather than the NRC minimum formula for estimating decommissioning costs. FilingsPilgrim

Entergy Nuclear Generation Company filed its Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities report (PSDAR) with the NRC in the fourth quarter 2018 for planned shutdown activities will determine whether any other financial assurance may be required and will specifically address funding for spent fuel management, which will be required until the federal government takes possessionPilgrim plant in anticipation of its May 2019 shutdown. As part of the fuel and removes it from the site, per its current obligation.

Entergy expects that amounts available in Vermont Yankee’s decommissioning trust fund, including expected earnings, together with borrowings under its credit facility that are expected to be repaid with recoveries from DOE litigation related to spent fuel storage, and the site restoration trust, will be sufficient to cover Vermont Yankee’s expected costs of decommissioning, spent fuel management costs, and site restoration. See Note 4 to the financial statements for discussiondevelopment of the credit facility and Note 16 toPSDAR, Entergy obtained a revised decommissioning cost study in the financial statements for discussion ofthird quarter 2018. The revised estimate resulted in a $117.5 million increase in the decommissioning trust fund.  In June 2015 the NRC staff issued an exemption from its regulations to allow cost liability and a corresponding impairment charge.

Vermont Yankee to use its decommissioning trust fund to pay for approximately $225 million of estimated future spent fuel management costs that will not be paid for using funds from its credit facility.  In August 2015, Vermont and two Vermont utilities filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the NRC’s issuance of that exemption.  In February 2016 the court dismissed the petition as premature because Vermont and the utilities had requested the NRC to reconsider a number of issues related to Vermont Yankee's use of the decommissioning trust fund including its use to pay for spent fuel management expenses pursuant to the exemption granted in June 2015. In October 2016 the NRC denied Vermont's and the utilities' request for a hearing and other relief but directed the NRC staff to conduct an assessment of any environmental impacts associated with the exemption. In December 2017 the NRC issued its final environmental assessment, concluding that the exemption did not, and will not, have a significant effect on the environment.

In the fourth quarter 2016,2018, Entergy Wholesale Commodities recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liability for Palisades as a result of a revised decommissioning cost study.Vermont Yankee. The revised estimate resulted in a $129$293 million increase in the decommissioning cost liability, along with a corresponding increase in the related asset retirement cost asset. The increase inrevision was prompted by the estimated decommissioning cost liability resulted from the change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows due to the decision to cease operationsprogress of the plant on October 1, 2018, subject to regulatory approval. The asset retirement cost asset was includedVermont Yankee sales transaction, which is described in the Palisades carrying value that was written down to fair value in the fourth quarter 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussionstatements. Entergy accordingly evaluated the Vermont Yankee asset retirement obligation in light of the impairment of the value and planned shutdown of the Palisades plant.

In the third quarter 2017, Entergy Wholesale Commodities recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liability for Palisades. The revised estimate resulted in a $68.7 million reduction in its decommissioning cost liability, along with a corresponding reduction in the plant asset. The reduction in its estimated decommissioning cost liability resulted from the change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows due to the decision to continue to operate the plant until May 31, 2022.

For the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants purchased in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust funds and the decommissioning liabilities.  NYPA and Entergy subsidiaries executed decommissioning agreements, which specified their decommissioning obligations.  NYPA had the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume each of the decommissioning liabilities provided that it assigned the corresponding decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to the Entergy subsidiaries.  Under the original agreements, if the decommissioning liabilities were retained by NYPA, the Entergy subsidiaries would perform the decommissioning of

153

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


the plants at a price equal to the lesser of a pre-specified level or the amount in the decommissioning trust funds. At the time of the acquisition of the plants Entergy recorded a contract asset that represented an estimate of the present value of the difference between the stipulated contract amount for decommissioning the plants less the decommissioning costs estimated in independent decommissioning cost studies. The asset was increased by monthly accretion based on the applicable discount rate necessary to ultimately provide for the estimated future value of the decommissioning contract.  The monthly accretion was recorded as interest income.

In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Wholesale Commodities recorded a revision to the contract asset for the FitzPatrick plant. Due to a change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows, the result was a write down of the contract asset from $335 million to $131 million, for a charge of $204 million.

In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy. As a result of the agreement with NYPA, in the third quarter 2016 Entergy removed the contract asset from its balance sheet, and recorded receivables for the beneficial interests in the decommissioning trust funds and asset retirement obligations for the decommissioning liabilities. The transaction was contingent upon receiving approval from the NRC, which was received in January 2017.  The decommissioning trust funds for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants were transferred to Entergy by NYPA in January 2017. In March 2017, Entergy sold the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon, and as part of the transaction, the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund, along with the decommissioning obligation for that plant, was transferred to Exelon. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussionterms of the sale transaction, upon determining that Vermont Yankee was in held for sale status. Based on the terms of FitzPatrick.

In the fourth quarter 2016,sales agreement, which include Entergy Wholesale Commodities recordedreceiving a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liabilities for Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 as a resultnote receivable from the purchaser, Entergy determined that $165 million of revised decommissioning cost studies. The revised estimates resulted in a $392 million increase in the decommissioning cost liabilities, along with a corresponding increase in the related asset retirement cost assets. The increase in the estimated decommissioning cost liabilities resulted from the change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows due to the decision to cease operations of the Indian Point 2 plant no later than April 2020was impaired, and the Indian Point 3 plant no later than April 2021. The asset retirement cost assets were included in the carrying value thatit was accordingly written down to fair value in the fourth quarter 2016. See Note 142018. The Vermont Yankee plant was sold to the financial statements for discussion of the impairment of the value and planned shutdown of Indian Point Energy Center.NorthStar in January 2019.


As the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants individually approach and begin decommissioning, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners will submit filings with the NRC for planned shutdown activities. These filings with the NRC will determine whether any other financial assurance may be required. The plants’Filings Regarding Trust Funding Levels

Plant owners are required to provide the NRC with a biennial report (annually for units that have shut down or will shut down within five years), based on values as of December 31, addressing the owners’ ability to meet the NRC minimum funding levels. Depending on the value of the trust funds, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners may be required to take steps, such as providing financial guarantees through letters of credit or parent company guarantees or making additional contributions to the trusts, which could be significant, to ensure that the trusts are adequately funded and that NRC minimum funding requirements are met.



154

Entergy CorporationAs nuclear plants individually approach and Subsidiaries
Notesbegin decommissioning, filings will be submitted to Financial Statements


Entergy maintainsthe NRC for planned shutdown activities. These filings with the NRC also determine whether financial assurance may be required in addition to the nuclear decommissioning trust funds that are committed to meeting its obligations for the costs of decommissioning the nuclear power plants.  The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds and the related asset retirement obligation regulatory assets (liabilities) of Entergy as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 are as follows:fund.

 2017 2016
 
Decommissioning
Trust Fair Values
 
Regulatory
Asset (Liability)
 Decommissioning
Trust Fair Values
 Regulatory
Asset (Liability)
 (In Millions) (In Millions)
Utility:       
ANO 1 and ANO 2
$944.9
 $337.9 
$834.7
 
$316.3
River Bend
$818.2
 ($30.6) 
$712.8
 
($28.4)
Waterford 3
$493.9
 $188.9 
$427.9
 
$172.8
Grand Gulf
$905.7
 $169.1 
$780.5
 
$142.5
Entergy Wholesale Commodities
$4,049.3
 $— 
$2,968.0
 
$—

As a result of the agreement with NYPA discussed above, in the third quarter 2016, Entergy removed the contract asset from its balance sheet, and recorded receivables of $1.5 billion for the beneficial interests in the decommissioning trust funds for Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick. At December 31, 2016, the fair values of the decommissioning trust funds held by NYPA were $719 million for the Indian Point 3 plant and $785 million for the FitzPatrick plant. See Note 16 to the financial statements for further discussion of the transfer of the decommissioning trust funds held by NYPA to Entergy.

Coal Combustion Residuals


In June 2010 the EPA issued a proposed rule on coal combustion residuals (CCRs) that contained two primary regulatory options: (1) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or received (including stored) in surface impoundments as so-called “special wastes” under the hazardous waste program of RCRAResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C; or (2) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments as non-hazardous wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA.  Under both options, CCRs that are beneficially reused in certain processes would remain excluded from hazardous waste regulation. In April 2015 the EPA published the final CCR rule with the material being regulated under the second scenario presented above - as non-hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA Subtitle D. The final regulations create new compliance requirements including modified storage, new notification and reporting practices, product disposal considerations, and CCR unit closure criteria.  Entergy believes that on-site disposal options will be available at its facilities, to the extent needed for CCR that cannot be transferred for beneficial reuse. In December 2016 the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) was signed into law, which authorizes states to regulate coal ash rather than leaving primary enforcement to citizen suit actions. States may submit to the EPA proposals for permit programs. In September 2017 the EPA agreed to reconsider certain provisions of the CCR rule in light of the WIIN Act. The EPA has not yet initiated a new round of rulemaking and has not extended the existing mid-October 2017 groundwater monitoring deadline. Entergy met the existing monitoring deadline, is monitoring state agency actions, and will participate in the regulatory development process.



155
156

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements





NOTE 10.   LEASES  (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Entergy implemented ASU 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842),” effective January 1, 2019. The ASU’s core principle is that “a lessee should recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from leases.” The ASU considers that “all leases create an asset and a liability,” and accordingly requires recording the assets and liabilities related to all leases with a term greater than 12 months. Concurrent with the implementation of ASU 2016-02, Entergy implemented ASU 2018-01, “Leases (Topic 842): Land Easement Practical Expedient for Transition to Topic 842,” which provided Entergy the option to elect not to evaluate existing land easements that are not currently accounted for as leases under the previous lease standard, and ASU 2018-11, “Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements,” which intended to simplify the transition requirement giving Entergy the option to apply the transition provisions of the new standard at the date of adoption instead of at the earliest comparative period. In implementing these ASUs, Entergy elected the options provided in both ASU 2018-01 and ASU 2018-11. This accounting was applied to all lease agreements using the modified retrospective method, which required an adjustment to retained earnings for the cumulative effect of adopting the standard as of the effective date, and when implemented with ASU 2018-11, allowed Entergy to recognize the leased assets and liabilities on its balance sheet beginning on January 1, 2019 without restating prior periods. In adopting the standard in January 2019, Entergy recognized right-of-use assets and corresponding lease liabilities totaling approximately $263 million, including $59 million for Entergy Arkansas, $51 million for Entergy Louisiana, $26 million for Entergy Mississippi, $7 million for Entergy New Orleans, and $16 million for Entergy Texas. Implementation of the standards had no material effect on consolidated net income; therefore, no adjustment to retained earnings was recorded. The adoption of the standards had no effect on cash flows.

General


As of December 31, 2017,2020 and 2019, Entergy had capital leases and non-cancelablethe Registrant Subsidiaries held operating and finance leases for equipment, buildings,fleet vehicles used in operations, real estate, and fuel storage facilities with minimum lease payments as follows (excludingaircraft. Excluded are power purchase agreement operating leases,agreements not meeting the definition of a lease, nuclear fuel leases, and the Grand Gulf salesale-leaseback which were determined not to be leases under the accounting standards.

Leases have remaining terms of one year to 60 years. Real estate leases generally include at least one five-year renewal option; however, renewal is not typically considered reasonably certain unless Entergy or a Registrant Subsidiary makes significant leasehold improvements or other modifications that would hinder its ability to easily move. In certain of the lease agreements for fleet vehicles used in operations, Entergy and leaseback transaction,the Registrant Subsidiaries provide residual value guarantees to the lessor. Due to the nature of the agreements and Entergy’s continuing relationship with the lessor, however, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries expect to renegotiate or refinance the leases prior to conclusion of the lease. As such, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries do not believe it is probable that they will be required to pay anything pertaining to the residual value guarantee, and the lease liabilities and right-of-use assets are measured accordingly.

Entergy incurred the following total lease costs for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019:
20202019
(In Thousands)
Operating lease cost$67,471 $63,566 
Finance lease cost:
Amortization of right-of-use assets$12,180 $16,048 
Interest on lease liabilities$2,884 $3,667 

157

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Of the lease costs disclosed above, Entergy had $759 thousand and $43 thousand in short-term leases costs for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively.

The lease costs disclosed above materially approximate the cash flows used by Entergy for leases with all costs included within operating activities on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, except for the finance lease costs which are discussed elsewhere):included in financing activities.

The Registrant Subsidiaries incurred the following lease costs for the year ended December 31, 2020:
Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy
New Orleans
Entergy Texas
(In Thousands)
Operating lease cost$14,344 $13,944 $6,584 $1,443 $4,870 
Finance lease cost:
Amortization of right-of-use assets$2,693 $4,097 $1,627 $712 $1,340 
Interest on lease liabilities$408 $597 $254 $120 $196 

Of the lease costs disclosed above, Entergy Arkansas had $43 thousand and Entergy Louisiana had $719 thousand in short-term lease costs for the year ended December 31, 2020.    

The lease costs disclosed above materially approximate the cash flows used by the Registrant Subsidiaries for leases with all costs included within operating activities on the respective Statements of Cash Flows, except for the finance lease costs which are included in financing activities.

The Registrant Subsidiaries incurred the following lease costs for the year ended December 31, 2019:
Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy
New Orleans
Entergy Texas
(In Thousands)
Operating lease cost$13,213 $11,975 $6,927 $1,406 $4,259 
Finance lease cost:
Amortization of right-of-use assets$3,643 $5,940 $2,097 $1,042 $1,568 
Interest on lease liabilities$594 $895 $353 $168 $241 

Of the lease costs disclosed above, Entergy Louisiana had $43 thousand in short-term lease costs for the year ended December 31, 2019.

The lease costs disclosed above materially approximate the cash flows used by the Registrant Subsidiaries for leases with all costs included within operating activities on the respective Statements of Cash Flows, except for the finance lease costs which are included in financing activities.
Entergy has elected to account for short-term leases in accordance with policy options provided by accounting guidance; therefore, there are no related lease liabilities or right-of-use assets for the costs recognized above by Entergy or by its Registrant Subsidiaries in the table below.

Included within Property, Plant, and Equipment on Entergy’s consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2020 and 2019 are $230 million and $234 million related to operating leases, respectively, and $60 million and $61 million related to finance leases, respectively.

158

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

 
Year
 
Operating
Leases
 
Capital
Leases
  (In Thousands)
2018 
$80,368
 
$3,018
2019 82,516
 2,887
2020 67,385
 2,887
2021 58,507
 2,887
2022 43,760
 2,887
Years thereafter 96,550
 19,004
Minimum lease payments 429,086
 33,570
Less:  Amount representing interest 
 10,051
Present value of net minimum lease payments 
$429,086
 
$23,519
Included within Utility Plant on the Registrant Subsidiaries’ respective balance sheets at December 31, 2020 and 2019 are the following amounts:

Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
(In Thousands)
2020
Operating leases$55,840 $43,189 $16,538 $5,222 $14,738 
Finance leases$12,447 $16,425 $7,452 $3,428 $5,719 
2019
Operating leases$52,317 $36,034 $16,900 $3,878 $14,020 
Finance leases$11,216 $17,209 $6,869 $3,291 $5,273 

The following lease-related liabilities are recorded within the respective Other lines on Entergy’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2020 and 2019:
20202019
(In Thousands)
Current liabilities:
Operating leases$59,004 $52,678 
Finance leases$11,921 $11,413 
Non-current liabilities:
Operating leases$170,980 $181,339 
Finance leases$52,803 $53,396 

The following lease-related liabilities are recorded within the respective Other lines on the Registrant Subsidiaries’ respective balance sheets at December 31, 2020:
Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
(In Thousands)
Current liabilities:
Operating leases$11,942 $11,934 $5,738 $1,406 $4,277 
Finance leases$2,660 $3,821 $1,644 $686 $1,327 
Non-current liabilities:
Operating leases$43,914 $31,260 $10,867 $3,819 $10,469 
Finance leases$9,788 $12,603 $5,808 $2,741 $4,392 

159

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




The following lease-related liabilities are recorded within the respective Other lines on the Registrant Subsidiaries’ respective balance sheets at December 31, 2019:
Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
(In Thousands)
Current liabilities:
Operating leases$11,443 $10,331 $5,633 $1,134 $3,698 
Finance leases$2,442 $3,919 $1,487 $647 $1,222 
Non-current liabilities:
Operating leases$40,880 $25,743 $11,232 $2,746 $10,364 
Finance leases$8,768 $13,376 $5,382 $2,644 $4,009 

The following information contains the weighted average remaining lease term in years and the weighted average discount rate for the operating and finance leases of Entergy at December 31, 2020 and 2019:
20202019
Weighted average remaining lease terms:
Operating leases4.825.14
Finance leases6.346.69
Weighted average discount rate:
Operating leases3.58 %3.86 %
Finance leases4.42 %4.60 %

The following information contains the weighted average remaining lease term in years and the weighted average discount rate for the operating and finance leases of the Registrant Subsidiaries at December 31, 2020:
Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
Weighted average remaining lease terms:
Operating leases5.744.725.305.784.30
Finance leases5.605.205.445.695.39
Weighted average discount rate:
Operating leases3.34 %3.11 %3.43 %3.09 %3.07 %
Finance leases3.18 %3.33 %3.22 %3.35 %3.22 %
160

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


The following information contains the weighted average remaining lease term in years and the weighted average discount rate for the operating and finance leases of the Registrant Subsidiaries at December 31, 2019:
Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
Weighted average remaining lease terms:
Operating leases5.844.335.045.624.54
Finance leases5.435.245.325.935.12
Weighted average discount rate:
Operating leases3.67 %3.65 %3.75 %3.88 %3.73 %
Finance leases3.68 %3.65 %3.67 %3.74 %3.82 %

Maturity of the lease liabilities for Entergy as of December 31, 2020 are as follows:
YearOperating LeasesFinance Leases
(In Thousands)
2021$65,693 $14,436 
202257,497 13,175 
202346,540 12,114 
202438,525 10,013 
202520,269 8,225 
Years thereafter20,999 16,436 
Minimum lease payments249,523 74,399 
Less: amount representing interest19,539 9,675 
Present value of net minimum lease payments$229,984 $64,724 

161

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Maturity of the lease liabilities for the Registrant Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2020 are as follows:

Operating Leases
YearEntergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
(In Thousands)
2021$13,527 $13,076 $6,183 $1,533 $4,650 
202211,547 10,581 4,890 1,256 3,705 
20239,868 8,624 2,788 1,028 3,299 
20248,524 6,466 1,749 773 2,313 
20256,993 3,693 872 406 1,037 
Years thereafter10,737 3,717 1,927 694 657 
Minimum lease payments61,196 46,157 18,409 5,690 15,661 
Less: amount representing interest5,340 2,963 1,804 465 915 
Present value of net minimum lease payments$55,856 $43,194 $16,605 $5,225 $14,746 

Finance Leases
YearEntergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
(In Thousands)
2021$3,013 $4,305 $1,857 $790 $1,490 
20222,712 3,856 1,665 729 1,258 
20232,441 3,437 1,483 684 1,119 
20241,978 2,493 1,156 561 882 
20251,498 1,783 885 456 677 
Years thereafter1,843 1,893 1,027 523 759 
Minimum lease payments13,485 17,767 8,073 3,743 6,185 
Less: amount representing interest1,037 1,343 621 316 467 
Present value of net minimum lease payments$12,448 $16,424 $7,452 $3,427 $5,718 

In allocating consideration in lease contracts to the lease and non-lease components, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries have made the accounting policy election to combine lease and non-lease components related to fleet vehicles used in operations, fuel storage agreements, and purchased power agreements and to allocate the contract consideration to both lease and non-lease components for real estate leases.

Following are the relevant lease disclosures from Note 10 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018.

Total 2018 rental expenses for all leases (excluding power purchase agreement operating leases, nuclear fuel leases, and the Grand Gulf and Waterford 3 sale and leaseback transactions)transaction) amounted to $53.1$47.8 million in 2017, $44.4 million in 2016,for Entergy.
162

Entergy Corporation and $63.9 million in 2015.Subsidiaries

Notes to Financial Statements
As of December 31, 2017 the Registrant Subsidiaries had non-cancelable operating

Total 2018 rental expenses for leases for equipment, buildings, vehicles, and fuel storage facilities with minimum lease payments as follows (excluding power purchase agreement operating leases, nuclear fuel leases, and the Grand Gulf lease obligation, all of which are discussed elsewhere):sale and leaseback transaction) amounted to $6.2 million for Entergy Arkansas, $20.2 million for Entergy Louisiana, $4.6 million for Entergy Mississippi, $2.5 million for Entergy New Orleans, $3.1 million for Entergy Texas, and $1.9 million for System Energy.

Operating Leases
 
 
Year
 
 
Entergy
Arkansas
 
 
Entergy
Louisiana
 
 
Entergy
Mississippi
 
Entergy
New Orleans
 
 
Entergy
Texas
  (In Thousands)
2018 
$17,009
 
$21,814
 
$11,771
 
$1,646
 
$3,469
2019 17,665
 22,875
 10,611
 1,579
 2,893
2020 11,483
 17,790
 8,969
 1,382
 1,934
2021 9,363
 13,762
 7,059
 1,033
 1,299
2022 6,834
 10,067
 5,007
 662
 862
Years thereafter 23,598
 19,443
 5,817
 1,797
 2,173
Minimum lease payments 
$85,952
 
$105,751
 
$49,234
 
$8,099
 
$12,630


156

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


Rental Expenses
 
 
Year
 
 
Entergy
Arkansas
 
 
Entergy
Louisiana
 
 
Entergy
Mississippi
 
Entergy
New Orleans
 
 
Entergy
Texas
 
 
System
Energy
  (In Millions)
2017 
$7.5
 
$23.0
 
$5.6
 
$2.5
 
$3.4
 
$2.2
2016 
$8.0
 
$17.8
 
$4.0
 
$0.9
 
$2.8
 
$1.6
2015 
$13.6
 
$21.8
 
$5.4
 
$1.6
 
$4.0
 
$2.9


In addition to the above rental expense, railcar operating lease payments and oil tank facilities lease payments are recorded in fuel expense in accordance with regulatory treatment. Railcar operating lease payments were $4.0$2.8 million in 2017, $3.4 million in 2016, and $4.7 million in 20152018 for Entergy Arkansas and $0.3$0.4 million in 2017, $0.3 million in 2016, and $1.1 million in 20152018 for Entergy Louisiana. Oil tank facilities lease payments for Entergy Mississippi were $1.6$0.1 million in 2017, $1.6 million in 2016, and $1.6 million in 2015.2018.

Power Purchase Agreements

As of December 31, 2017, Entergy Texas had a power purchase agreement that is accounted for as an operating lease under the accounting standards. The lease payments are recovered in fuel expense in accordance with regulatory treatment. The minimum lease payments under the power purchase agreement are as follows:

Year Entergy Texas (a) Entergy
  (In Thousands)
2018 
$30,458
 
$30,458
2019 31,159
 31,159
2020 31,876
 31,876
2021 32,609
 32,609
2022 10,180
 10,180
Years thereafter 
 
Minimum lease payments 
$136,282
 
$136,282

(a)Amounts reflect 100% of minimum payments. Under a separate contract, which expires May 31, 2022, Entergy Louisiana purchases 50% of the capacity and energy from the power purchase agreement from Entergy Texas.


Total capacity expense under the power purchase agreement accounted for as an operating lease at Entergy Texas was $34.1$30.5 million in 2017, $26.1 million in 2016, and $29.9 million in 2015.2018.


Sales and Leaseback Transactions

Waterford 3 Lease Obligation

In 1989, in three separate but substantially identical transactions, Entergy Louisiana sold and leased back undivided interests in Waterford 3 for the aggregate sum of $353.6 million.  The leases were scheduled to expire in July 2017.  Entergy Louisiana was required to report the sale-leaseback as a financing transaction in its financial statements.

In December 2015, Entergy Louisiana agreed to purchase the undivided interests in Waterford 3 that were previously being leased. The purchase was accomplished in a two-step transaction in which Entergy Louisiana first

157

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


acquired the equity participant’s beneficial interest in the leased assets, followed by a termination of the leases and transfer of the leased assets to Entergy Louisiana when the outstanding lessor debt is paid.

In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana completed the first step in the two-step transaction by acquiring the equity participant’s beneficial interest in the leased assets. Entergy Louisiana paid $60 million in cash and $52 million through the issuance of a non-interest bearing collateral trust mortgage note, payable in installments through July 2017. Entergy Louisiana continued to make payments on the lessor debt that remained outstanding and which matured in January 2017. The combination of payments on the $52 million collateral trust mortgage note issued and the debt service on the lessor debt was equal in timing and amount to the remaining lease payments due from the closing of the transaction through the end of the lease term in July 2017.

Throughout the term of the lease, Entergy Louisiana had accrued a liability for the amount it expected to pay to retain the use of the undivided interests in Waterford 3 at the end of the lease term. Since the sale-leaseback transaction was accounted for as a financing transaction, the accrual of this liability was accounted for as additional interest expense. As of December 2015, the balance of this liability was $62.7 million. Upon entering into the agreement to purchase the equity participant’s beneficial interest in the undivided interests, Entergy Louisiana reduced the balance of the liability to $60 million, and recorded the $2.7 million difference as a credit to interest expense. The $60 million remaining liability was eliminated upon payment of the cash portion of the purchase price in 2016.

As of December 31, 2016, Entergy Louisiana, in connection with the Waterford 3 lease obligation, had a future minimum lease payment (reflecting an interest rate of 8.09%) of $57.5 million, including $2.3 million in interest, due January 2017 that was recorded as long-term debt.

In February 2017 the leases were terminated and the leased assets were conveyed to Entergy Louisiana.

Grand Gulf Lease Obligations

In 1988, in two separate but substantially identical transactions, System Energy sold and leased back undivided ownership interests in Grand Gulf for the aggregate sum of $500 million.  The initial term of the leases expired in July 2015.  System Energy renewed the leases for fair market value with renewal terms expiring in July 2036. At the end of the new lease renewal terms, System Energy has the option to repurchase the leased interests in Grand Gulf or renew the leases at fair market value.  In the event that System Energy does not renew or purchase the interests, System Energy would surrender such interests and their associated entitlement of Grand Gulf’s capacity and energy.

System Energy is required to report the sale-leaseback as a financing transaction in its financial statements.  For financial reporting purposes, System Energy expenses the interest portion of the lease obligation and the plant depreciation.  However, operating revenues include the recovery of the lease payments because the transactions are accounted for as a sale and leaseback for ratemaking purposes.  Consistent with a recommendation contained in a FERC audit report, System Energy initially recorded as a net regulatory asset the difference between the recovery of the lease payments and the amounts expensed for interest and depreciation and continues to record this difference as a regulatory asset or liability on an ongoing basis, resulting in a zero net balance for the regulatory asset at the end of the lease term.  The amount was a net regulatory liability of $55.6 million as of December 31, 2017 and 2016.


158

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


As of December 31, 2017, System Energy, in connection with the Grand Gulf sale and leaseback transactions, had future minimum lease payments (reflecting an implicit rate of 5.13%) that are recorded as long-term debt, as follows:
 Amount
 (In Thousands)
  
2018
$17,188
201917,188
202017,188
202117,188
202217,188
Years thereafter240,625
Total326,565
Less: Amount representing interest292,209
Present value of net minimum lease payments
$34,356


NOTE 11.  RETIREMENT, OTHER POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS, AND DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLANS  (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Qualified Pension Plans


Entergy has eight defined benefit qualified pension plans covering substantially all employees. The Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan for Non-Bargaining Employees (Non-Bargaining Plan I), the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan for Bargaining Employees (Bargaining Plan I),the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan II for Non-Bargaining Employees (Non-Bargaining Plan II), the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan II for Bargaining Employees, the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan III, and the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan IV for Bargaining Employees are non-contributory final average pay plans and provide pension benefits that are based on employees’ credited service and compensation during employment.  Effective as of the close of business on December 31, 2016, the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan IV for Non-Bargaining Employees (Non-Bargaining Plan IV) was merged with and into Non-Bargaining Plan II. At the close of business on December 31, 2016, the liabilities for the accrued benefits and the assets attributable to such liabilities of all participants in Non-Bargaining Plan IV were assumed by and transferred to Non-Bargaining Plan II. There was no loss of vesting or benefit options or reduction of accrued benefits to affected participants as a result of this plan merger. Non-bargaining employees whose most recent date of hire is after June 30, 2014 but before January 1, 2021 participate in the Entergy Corporation Cash Balance Plan for Non-Bargaining Employees (Non-Bargaining Cash Balance Plan). Certain bargaining employees hired or rehired after June 30, 2014, or such later date provided for in their applicable collective bargaining agreements, participate in the Entergy Corporation Cash Balance Plan for Bargaining Employees (Bargaining Cash Balance Plan). The Registrant Subsidiaries participate in these four plans: Non-Bargaining Plan I, Bargaining Plan I, Non-Bargaining Cash Balance Plan, and Bargaining Cash Balance Plan.


The assets of the six final average pay defined benefit qualified pension plans are held in a master trust established by Entergy, and the assets of the two cash balance pension plans are held in a second master trust established by Entergy.  Each pension plan has an undivided beneficial interest in each of the investment accounts in its respective master trust that is maintained by a trustee.  Use of the master trusts permits the commingling of the trust assets of the pension plans of Entergy Corporation and its Registrant Subsidiaries for investment and administrative purposes.  Although assets in the master trusts are commingled, the trustee maintains supporting records for the purpose of allocating the trust level equity in net earnings (loss) and the administrative expenses of the investment accounts in each trust to the various participating pension plans in that particular trust.  The fair value of the trusts’ assets is determined by the trustee and certain investment managers.  For each trust, the trustee calculates a daily earnings factor, including realized and

159

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


unrealized gains or losses, collected and accrued income, and administrative expenses, and allocates earnings to each plan in the master trusts on a pro rata basis.


Within each pension plan, the record of each Registrant Subsidiary’s beneficial interest in the plan assets is maintained by the plan’s actuary and is updated quarterly.  Assets for each Registrant Subsidiary are increased for investment net income and contributions, and are decreased for benefit payments.  A plan’s investment net income/loss (i.e. interest and dividends, realized and unrealized gains and losses and expenses) is allocated to the Registrant Subsidiaries participating in that plan based on the value of assets for each Registrant Subsidiary at the beginning of the quarter adjusted for contributions and benefit payments made during the quarter.

163

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements





Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries fund pension plans in an amount not less than the minimum required contribution under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.  The assets of the plans include common and preferred stocks, fixed-income securities, interest in a money market fund, and insurance contracts.  The Registrant Subsidiaries’ pension costs are recovered from customers as a component of cost of service in each of their respective jurisdictions.


Components of Qualified Net Pension Cost and Other Amounts Recognized as a Regulatory Asset and/or Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI)


Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries’ total 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 qualified pension costs and amounts recognized as a regulatory asset and/or other comprehensive income, including amounts capitalized, included the following components:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Net periodic pension cost:   
Service cost - benefits earned during the period$161,487 $134,193 $155,010 
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation239,614 293,114 267,415 
Expected return on assets(414,273)(414,947)(442,142)
Amortization of prior service cost398 
Recognized net loss350,010 241,117 274,104 
Settlement charges36,946 23,492 828 
Net periodic pension costs$373,784 $276,969 $255,613 
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)   
Arising this period:   
Net loss$483,653 $614,600 $394,951 
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic pension cost in the current year:   
Amortization of prior service cost(398)
Amortization of net loss(358,473)(241,117)(274,104)
Settlement charge(36,946)(23,492)(828)
Total$88,234 $349,991 $119,621 
Total recognized as net periodic pension cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax)$462,018 $626,960 $375,234 
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
Net periodic pension cost: 
  
  
Service cost - benefits earned during the period
$133,641
 
$143,244
 
$175,046
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation260,824
 261,613
 302,777
Expected return on assets(408,225) (389,465) (394,618)
Amortization of prior service cost261
 1,079
 1,561
Recognized net loss227,720
 195,298
 235,922
Curtailment loss
 3,084
 374
Special termination benefit
 
 76
Net periodic pension costs
$214,221
 
$214,853
 
$321,138
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)     
Arising this period:     
Net loss
$368,067
 
$203,229
 
$50,762
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic pension cost in the current year:     
Amortization of prior service cost(261) (1,079) (1,561)
Acceleration of prior service cost to curtailment
 (1,045) (374)
Amortization of net loss(227,720) (195,298) (235,922)
Total
$140,086
 
$5,807
 
($187,095)
Total recognized as net periodic pension cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax)
$354,307
 
$220,660
 
$134,043
Estimated amortization amounts from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic cost in the following year:     
Prior service cost
$398
 
$261
 
$1,079
Net loss
$274,104
 
$227,720
 
$195,321


160
164

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



The Registrant Subsidiaries’ total 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 qualified pension costs and amounts recognized as a regulatory asset and/or other comprehensive income, including amounts capitalized, for their employees included the following components:
2020Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Net periodic pension cost:      
Service cost - benefits earned during the period$26,329 $35,158 $8,060 $2,654 $6,116 $7,883 
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation44,165 50,432 12,922 5,825 10,731 11,006 
Expected return on assets(78,187)(89,691)(23,147)(10,509)(21,951)(18,757)
Recognized net loss68,338 66,640 18,983 8,018 13,173 17,104 
Settlement charges21,078 8,109 3,366 4,289 105 
Net pension cost$81,723 $70,648 $20,184 $5,988 $12,358 $17,341 
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)      
Arising this period:      
Net loss$106,178 $90,064 $36,899 $8,148 $13,379 $35,403 
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic pension cost in the current year:      
Amortization of net loss(69,713)(68,248)(19,393)(8,213)(13,564)(17,434)
Settlement charge(21,078)(8,109)(3,366)(4,289)(105)
Total$15,387 $13,707 $14,140 ($65)($4,474)$17,864 
Total recognized as net periodic pension cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax)$97,110 $84,355 $34,324 $5,923 $7,884 $35,205 
2017 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Net periodic pension cost:            
Service cost - benefits earned during the period 
$20,358
 
$27,698
 
$5,890
 
$2,500
 
$5,455
 
$6,145
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation 51,776
 59,235
 14,927
 7,163
 13,569
 12,364
Expected return on assets (81,707) (92,067) (24,526) (11,199) (24,722) (18,650)
Recognized net loss 46,560
 49,417
 12,213
 6,632
 9,241
 11,857
Net pension cost 
$36,987
 
$44,283
 
$8,504
 
$5,096
 
$3,543
 
$11,716
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)            
Arising this period:            
Net loss 
$51,569
 
$57,510
 
$14,681
 
$8,601
 
$1,109
 
$27,733
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic pension cost in the current year:            
Amortization of net loss (46,560) (49,417) (12,213) (6,632) (9,241) (11,857)
Total 
$5,009
 
$8,093
 
$2,468
 
$1,969
 
($8,132) 
$15,876
Total recognized as net periodic pension (income)/cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax) 
$41,996
 
$52,376
 
$10,972
 
$7,065
 
($4,589) 
$27,592
Estimated amortization amounts from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic cost in the following year            
Net loss 
$53,650
 
$57,800
 
$14,438
 
$7,816
 
$10,503
 
$14,859



161
165

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






2019Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Net periodic pension cost:      
Service cost - benefits earned during the period$21,043 $29,137 $6,516 $2,274 $5,401 $6,199 
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation56,701 63,529 16,272 7,495 14,451 13,456 
Expected return on assets(80,705)(90,607)(23,873)(10,785)(23,447)(18,710)
Recognized net loss47,361 46,571 12,416 6,117 9,335 11,400 
Net pension cost$44,400 $48,630 $11,331 $5,101 $5,740 $12,345 
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)      
Arising this period:      
Net loss$118,898 $99,346 $41,088 $6,531 $10,869 $36,711 
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic pension cost in the current year:      
Amortization of net loss(47,361)(46,571)(12,416)(6,117)(9,335)(11,400)
Total$71,537 $52,775 $28,672 $414 $1,534 $25,311 
Total recognized as net periodic pension cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax)$115,937 $101,405 $40,003 $5,515 $7,274 $37,656 

166
2016 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Net periodic pension cost:            
Service cost - benefits earned during the period 
$20,724
 
$28,194
 
$6,250
 
$2,625
 
$5,664
 
$6,263
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation 52,219
 59,478
 15,245
 7,256
 14,228
 11,966
Expected return on assets (79,087) (88,383) (23,923) (10,748) (24,248) (17,836)
Recognized net loss 43,745
 47,783
 11,938
 6,460
 9,358
 10,415
Net pension cost 
$37,601
 
$47,072
 
$9,510
 
$5,593
 
$5,002
 
$10,808
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)            
Arising this period:            
Net loss 
$60,968
 
$46,742
 
$10,942
 
$5,463
 
$3,816
 
$20,805
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic pension cost in the current year:            
Amortization of net loss (43,745) (47,783) (11,938) (6,460) (9,358) (10,415)
Total 
$17,223
 
($1,041) 
($996) 
($997) 
($5,542) 
$10,390
Total recognized as net periodic pension (income)/ cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax) 
$54,824
 
$46,031
 
$8,514
 
$4,596
 
($540) 
$21,198
Estimated amortization amounts from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic cost in the following year            
Net loss 
$46,560
 
$49,417
 
$12,213
 
$6,632
 
$9,241
 
$11,857


162

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



2018Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Net periodic pension cost:      
Service cost - benefits earned during the period$24,757 $33,783 $7,286 $2,693 $6,356 $7,102 
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation52,017 59,761 15,075 7,253 13,390 12,907 
Expected return on assets(87,404)(99,236)(26,007)(11,973)(26,091)(19,963)
Recognized net loss53,650 57,800 14,438 7,816 10,503 14,859 
Net pension cost$43,020 $52,108 $10,792 $5,789 $4,158 $14,905 
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)      
Arising this period:      
Net (gain)/loss$74,570 $41,642 $19,244 $2,351 $24,121 ($2,359)
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic pension cost in the current year:      
Amortization of net loss(53,650)(57,800)(14,438)(7,816)(10,503)(14,859)
Total$20,920 ($16,158)$4,806 ($5,465)$13,618 ($17,218)
Total recognized as net periodic pension cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax)$63,940 $35,950 $15,598 $324 $17,776 ($2,313)

167
2015 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Net periodic pension cost:            
Service cost - benefits earned during the period 
$26,646
 
$34,396
 
$7,929
 
$3,395
 
$6,582
 
$7,827
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation 61,885
 69,465
 18,007
 8,432
 17,414
 13,970
Expected return on assets (80,102) (90,803) (24,420) (10,899) (24,887) (18,271)
Recognized net loss 54,254
 59,802
 14,896
 8,053
 12,950
 13,055
Net pension cost 
$62,683
 
$72,860
 
$16,412
 
$8,981
 
$12,059
 
$16,581
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)            
Arising this period:            
Net (gain)/loss 
$16,687
 
$16,618
 
$6,329
 
$1,853
 
($4,488) 
$101
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic pension cost in the current year:            
Amortization of net loss (54,254) (59,802) (14,896) (8,053) (12,950) (13,055)
Total 
($37,567) 
($43,184) 
($8,567) 
($6,200) 
($17,438) 
($12,954)
Total recognized as net periodic pension (income)/cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax) 
$25,116
 
$29,676
 
$7,845
 
$2,781
 
($5,379) 
$3,627
Estimated amortization amounts from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic cost in the following year            
Net loss 
$43,747
 
$47,809
 
$11,938
 
$6,460
 
$9,358
 
$10,414


163

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






Qualified Pension Obligations, Plan Assets, Funded Status, Amounts Recognized in the Balance Sheet


Qualified pension obligations, plan assets, funded status, amounts recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for Entergy Corporation and its Subsidiaries as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are as follows:
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO)  
Balance at January 1$8,406,203 $7,404,917 
Service cost161,487 134,193 
Interest cost239,614 293,114 
Actuarial loss969,609 1,292,767 
Benefits paid (including settlement lump sum benefit payments of ($84,754) in 2020 and ($68,203) in 2019)(633,261)(718,788)
Balance at December 31$9,143,652 $8,406,203 
Change in Plan Assets  
Fair value of assets at January 1$6,271,160 $5,497,415 
Actual return on plan assets900,229 1,093,114 
Employer contributions316,298 399,419 
Benefits paid (including settlement lump sum benefit payments of ($84,754) in 2020 and ($68,203) in 2019)(633,261)(718,788)
Fair value of assets at December 31$6,854,426 $6,271,160 
Funded status($2,289,226)($2,135,043)
Amount recognized in the balance sheet  
Non-current liabilities($2,289,226)($2,135,043)
Amount recognized as a regulatory asset  
Net loss$2,926,670 $2,831,408 
Amount recognized as AOCI (before tax)  
Net loss$726,010 $724,575 
 2017 2016
 (In Thousands)
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO) 
  
Balance at January 1
$7,142,567
 
$6,848,238
Service cost133,641
 143,244
Interest cost260,824
 261,613
Curtailment
 2,039
Actuarial loss767,849
 209,360
Employee contributions40
 23
Benefits paid(317,834) (321,950)
Balance at December 31
$7,987,087
 
$7,142,567
Change in Plan Assets 
  
Fair value of assets at January 1
$5,171,202
 
$4,707,433
Actual return on plan assets808,007
 395,596
Employer contributions409,901
 390,100
Employee contributions40
 23
Benefits paid(317,834) (321,950)
Fair value of assets at December 31
$6,071,316
 
$5,171,202
Funded status
($1,915,771) 
($1,971,365)
Amount recognized in the balance sheet   
Non-current liabilities
($1,915,771) 
($1,971,365)
Amount recognized as a regulatory asset   
Net loss
$2,418,206
 
$2,326,349
Amount recognized as AOCI (before tax)   
Prior service cost
$398
 
$659
Net loss667,766
 619,276
 
$668,164
 
$619,935



164
168

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Qualified pension obligations, plan assets, funded status, amounts recognized in the Balance Sheets for the Registrant Subsidiaries as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are as follows:
2020Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO)      
Balance at January 1$1,615,084 $1,784,474 $471,510 $206,962 $396,764 $393,607 
Service cost26,329 35,158 8,060 2,654 6,116 7,883 
Interest cost44,165 50,432 12,922 5,825 10,731 11,006 
Actuarial loss196,755 196,032 62,564 20,535 37,579 57,574 
Benefits paid (a)(142,951)(138,825)(44,947)(15,689)(40,526)(28,922)
Balance at December 31$1,739,382 $1,927,271 $510,109 $220,287 $410,664 $441,148 
Change in Plan Assets      
Fair value of assets at
January 1
$1,200,035 $1,364,030 $354,928 $160,777 $339,126 $282,668 
Actual return on plan assets168,764 195,658 48,812 22,896 46,151 40,927 
Employer contributions60,008 55,443 12,601 4,567 4,997 16,145 
Benefits paid (a)(142,951)(138,825)(44,947)(15,689)(40,526)(28,922)
Fair value of assets at December 31$1,285,856 $1,476,306 $371,394 $172,551 $349,748 $310,818 
Funded status($453,526)($450,965)($138,715)($47,736)($60,916)($130,330)
Amounts recognized in the balance sheet (funded status)      
Non-current liabilities($453,526)($450,965)($138,715)($47,736)($60,916)($130,330)
Amounts recognized as regulatory asset      
Net loss$816,002 $766,099 $239,904 $91,991 $156,480 $212,062 
Amounts recognized as AOCI (before tax)      
Net loss$0 $31,921 $0 $0 $0 $0 
2017 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO)            
Balance at January 1 
$1,454,310
 
$1,624,233
 
$419,201
 
$197,464
 
$386,366
 
$335,381
Service cost 20,358
 27,698
 5,890
 2,500
 5,455
 6,145
Interest cost 51,776
 59,235
 14,927
 7,163
 13,569
 12,364
Actuarial loss 131,729
 147,704
 38,726
 19,507
 25,339
 45,471
Benefits paid (77,417) (73,170) (21,195) (8,738) (20,009) (15,312)
Balance at December 31 
$1,580,756
 
$1,785,700
 
$457,549
 
$217,896
 
$410,720
 
$384,049
Change in Plan Assets            
Fair value of assets at
January 1
 
$1,041,592
 
$1,169,147
 
$314,349
 
$142,488
 
$317,576
 
$235,144
Actual return on plan assets 161,868
 182,261
 48,572
 22,104
 48,952
 36,387
Employer contributions 79,625
 87,503
 19,116
 9,893
 17,004
 18,213
Benefits paid (77,417) (73,170) (21,195) (8,738) (20,009) (15,312)
Fair value of assets at December 31 
$1,205,668
 
$1,365,741
 
$360,842
 
$165,747
 
$363,523
 
$274,432
Funded status 
($375,088) 
($419,959) 
($96,707) 
($52,149) 
($47,197) 
($109,617)
Amounts recognized in the balance sheet (funded status)            
Non-current liabilities 
($375,088) 
($419,959) 
($96,707) 
($52,149) 
($47,197) 
($109,617)
Amounts recognized as regulatory asset            
Net loss 
$706,783
 
$701,324
 
$191,877
 
$96,913
 
$145,412
 
$185,774
Amounts recognized as AOCI (before tax)            
Net loss 
$—
 
$44,765
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—



(a)    Including settlement lump sum benefit payments of ($48.4) million at Entergy Arkansas, ($18.6) million at Entergy Louisiana, ($7.7) million at Entergy Mississippi, ($9.8) million at Entergy Texas, and ($236) thousand at System Energy.
165
169

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






2019Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO)      
Balance at January 1$1,443,808 $1,599,916 $414,089 $191,190 $369,604 $339,034 
Service cost21,043 29,137 6,516 2,274 5,401 6,199 
Interest cost56,701 63,529 16,272 7,495 14,451 13,456 
Actuarial loss248,213 248,509 79,453 24,299 49,235 66,460 
Benefits paid(154,681)(156,617)(44,820)(18,296)(41,927)(31,542)
Balance at December 31$1,615,084 $1,784,474 $471,510 $206,962 $396,764 $393,607 
Change in Plan Assets      
Fair value of assets at January 1$1,068,842 $1,215,926 $316,716 $145,968 $315,514 $245,516 
Actual return on plan assets210,020 239,770 62,238 28,552 61,814 48,460 
Employer contributions75,854 64,951 20,794 4,553 3,725 20,234 
Benefits paid(154,681)(156,617)(44,820)(18,296)(41,927)(31,542)
Fair value of assets at December 31$1,200,035 $1,364,030 $354,928 $160,777 $339,126 $282,668 
Funded status($415,049)($420,444)($116,582)($46,185)($57,638)($110,939)
Amounts recognized in the balance sheet (funded status)      
Non-current liabilities($415,049)($420,444)($116,582)($46,185)($57,638)($110,939)
Amounts recognized as regulatory asset      
Net loss$799,235 $759,228 $225,354 $91,862 $160,564 $193,870 
Amounts recognized as AOCI  (before tax)      
Net loss$0 $23,481 $0 $0 $0 $0 

2016 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO)            
Balance at January 1 
$1,400,511
 
$1,564,710
 
$408,604
 
$191,064
 
$383,627
 
$311,542
Service cost 20,724
 28,194
 6,250
 2,625
 5,664
 6,263
Interest cost 52,219
 59,478
 15,245
 7,256
 14,228
 11,966
Actuarial loss 62,187
 48,357
 11,343
 5,573
 4,274
 20,661
Benefits paid (81,331) (76,506) (22,241) (9,054) (21,427) (15,051)
Balance at December 31 
$1,454,310
 
$1,624,233
 
$419,201
 
$197,464
 
$386,366
 
$335,381
Change in Plan Assets            
Fair value of assets at January 1 
$959,618
 
$1,071,234
 
$292,297
 
$129,975
 
$298,378
 
$212,006
Actual return on plan assets 80,306
 89,998
 24,325
 10,858
 24,705
 17,692
Employer contributions 82,999
 84,421
 19,968
 10,709
 15,920
 20,497
Benefits paid (81,331) (76,506) (22,241) (9,054) (21,427) (15,051)
Fair value of assets at December 31 
$1,041,592
 
$1,169,147
 
$314,349
 
$142,488
 
$317,576
 
$235,144
Funded status 
($412,718) 
($455,086) 
($104,852) 
($54,976) 
($68,790) 
($100,237)
Amounts recognized in the balance sheet (funded status)            
Non-current liabilities 
($412,718) 
($455,086) 
($104,852) 
($54,976) 
($68,790) 
($100,237)
Amounts recognized as regulatory asset            
Net loss 
$701,774
 
$686,337
 
$189,409
 
$94,944
 
$153,544
 
$169,897
Amounts recognized as AOCI  (before tax)  
          
Net loss 
$—
 
$51,660
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
The qualified pension plans incurred actuarial losses during 2020 and 2019 primarily due to a fall in bond yields that resulted in decreases to the discount rates used to develop the benefit obligations. These losses were partially offset by gains resulting from the actual return on assets exceeding the expected return on assets for both 2020 and 2019.


Accumulated Pension Benefit Obligation


The accumulated benefit obligation for Entergy’s qualified pension plans was $7.4$8.4 billion and $6.7$7.8 billion at December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, respectively.


170

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

The qualified pension accumulated benefit obligation for each of the Registrant Subsidiaries for their employees as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 was as follows:
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
Entergy Arkansas$1,617,858 $1,519,998 
Entergy Louisiana$1,753,980 $1,643,759 
Entergy Mississippi$466,497 $438,817 
Entergy New Orleans$201,159 $192,561 
Entergy Texas$379,050 $371,589 
System Energy$410,296 $368,771 
 December 31,
 2017 2016
 (In Thousands)
Entergy Arkansas
$1,492,876
 
$1,379,265
Entergy Louisiana
$1,652,939
 
$1,513,884
Entergy Mississippi
$430,268
 
$396,081
Entergy New Orleans
$205,316
 
$186,247
Entergy Texas
$387,083
 
$365,251
System Energy
$359,258
 
$315,131


166

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Other Postretirement Benefits


Entergy also currently offers retiree medical, dental, vision, and life insurance benefits (other postretirement benefits) for eligible retired employees.  Employees who commenced employment before July 1, 2014 and who satisfy certain eligibility requirements (including retiring from Entergy after a certain age and/or years of service with Entergy and immediately commencing their Entergy pension benefit), may become eligible for other postretirement benefits.


In March 2020, Entergy usesannounced changes to its other postretirement benefits. Effective January 1, 2021, certain retired, former non-bargaining employees age 65 and older who are eligible for Entergy-sponsored retiree welfare benefits, and their eligible spouses who are age 65 and older (collectively, Medicare-eligible participants), will be eligible to participate in a new Entergy-sponsored retiree health plan, and will no longer be eligible for retiree coverage under the Entergy Corporation Companies’ Benefits Plus Medical, Dental and Vision Plans. Under the new Entergy retiree health plan, Medicare-eligible participants will be eligible to participate in a health reimbursement arrangement which they may use towards the purchase of various types of qualified insurance offered through a Medicare exchange provider and for other qualified medical expenses. In accordance with accounting standards, the effects of this change are reflected in the December 31, measurement date for its2020 other postretirement benefit plans.obligation. The changes affecting active bargaining unit employees will be negotiated with the unions prior to implementation, where necessary, and to the extent required by law.


Effective January 1, 1993, Entergy adopted an accounting standard requiring a change from a cash method to an accrual method of accounting for postretirement benefits other than pensions.  Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas have received regulatory approval to recover accrued other postretirement benefit costs through rates.  The LPSC ordered Entergy Louisiana to continue the use of the pay-as-you-go method for ratemaking purposes for postretirement benefits other than pensions.  However, the LPSC retains the flexibility to examine individual companies’ accounting for other postretirement benefits to determine if special exceptions to this order are warranted. Pursuant to regulatory directives, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy contribute the other postretirement benefit costs collected in rates into external trusts.  System Energy is funding, on behalf of Entergy Operations, other postretirement benefits associated with Grand Gulf.


Trust assets contributed by participating Registrant Subsidiaries are in master trusts, established by Entergy Corporation and maintained by a trustee.  Each participating Registrant Subsidiary holds a beneficial interest in the trusts’ assets.  The assets in the master trusts are commingled for investment and administrative purposes.  Although assets are commingled, supporting records are maintained for the purpose of allocating the beneficial interest in net earnings/(losses) and the administrative expenses of the investment accounts to the various participating plans and participating Registrant Subsidiaries. Beneficial interest in an investment account’s net income/(loss) is comprised of interest and dividends, realized and unrealized gains and losses, and expenses.  Beneficial interest from these
171

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




investments is allocated to the plans and participating Registrant Subsidiary based on their portion of net assets in the pooled accounts.


167

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Components of Net Other Postretirement Benefit Cost and Other Amounts Recognized as a Regulatory Asset and/or AOCI


Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ total 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 other postretirement benefit costs, including amounts capitalized and amounts recognized as a regulatory asset and/or other comprehensive income, included the following components:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Other postretirement costs:   
Service cost - benefits earned during the period$24,500 $18,699 $27,129 
Interest cost on accumulated postretirement benefit obligation (APBO)28,597 47,901 50,725 
Expected return on assets(40,880)(38,246)(41,493)
Amortization of prior service credit(32,882)(35,377)(37,002)
Recognized net loss3,481 1,430 13,729 
Net other postretirement benefit (income)/cost($17,184)($5,593)$13,088 
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and /or AOCI (before tax)   
Arising this period:   
Prior service credit for period($128,837)$0 $0 
Net (gain)/loss41,031 (38,526)(274,354)
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and /or AOCI to net periodic benefit cost in the current year:   
Amortization of prior service credit32,882 35,377 37,002 
Amortization of net loss(3,481)(1,430)(13,729)
Total($58,405)($4,579)($251,081)
Total recognized as net periodic benefit (income)/cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax)($75,589)($10,172)($237,993)
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
Other postretirement costs:     
Service cost - benefits earned during the period
$26,915
 
$32,291
 
$45,305
Interest cost on accumulated postretirement benefit obligation (APBO)55,838
 56,331
 71,934
Expected return on assets(37,630) (41,820) (45,375)
Amortization of prior service credit(41,425) (45,490) (37,280)
Recognized net loss21,905
 18,214
 31,573
Net other postretirement benefit cost
$25,603
 
$19,526
 
$66,157
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and /or AOCI (before tax)     
Arising this period:     
Prior service credit for period
($2,564) 
($20,353) 
($48,192)
Net (gain)/loss(66,922) 49,805
 (154,339)
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and /or AOCI to net periodic benefit cost in the current year:     
Amortization of prior service credit41,425
 45,490
 37,280
Amortization of net loss(21,905) (18,214) (31,573)
Total
($49,966) 
$56,728
 
($196,824)
Total recognized as net periodic benefit income/(cost), regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax)
($24,363) 
$76,254
 
($130,667)
Estimated amortization amounts from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic benefit cost in the following year     
Prior service credit
($37,002) 
($41,425) 
($45,485)
Net loss
$13,729
 
$21,905
 
$18,214



168
172

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Total 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 other postretirement benefit costs of the Registrant Subsidiaries, including amounts capitalized and deferred, for their employees included the following components:
2020Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 
Other postretirement costs:     
Service cost - benefits earned during the period$3,626 $5,993 $1,468 $445 $1,219 $1,254 
Interest cost on APBO4,712 6,216 1,536 784 2,008 1,130 
Expected return on assets(17,104)(5,167)(5,382)(9,643)(2,958)
Amortization of prior service credit(1,849)(6,179)(1,652)(763)(3,364)(1,065)
Recognized net (gain)/ loss540 (447)171 (13)907 121 
Net other postretirement benefit (income)/cost($10,075)$5,583 ($3,644)($4,929)($8,873)($1,518)
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)      
Arising this period:      
Prior service cost/(credit) for the period$12,320 ($23,508)($4,428)($5,493)($22,441)($1,963)
Net (gain)/loss$2,245 $8,744 ($4,456)($5,351)($3,266)$58 
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic benefit cost in the current year:     
Amortization of prior service credit1,849 6,179 1,652 763 3,364 1,065 
Amortization of net (gain)/loss(540)447 (171)13 (907)(121)
Total$15,874 ($8,138)($7,403)($10,068)($23,250)($961)
Total recognized as net periodic other postretirement (income)/cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax)$5,799 ($2,555)($11,047)($14,997)($32,123)($2,479)
2017 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
   
Other postretirement costs:            
Service cost - benefits earned during the period 
$3,451
 
$6,373
 
$1,160
 
$567
 
$1,488
 
$1,278
Interest cost on APBO 9,020
 12,101
 2,759
 1,874
 4,494
 2,236
Expected return on assets (15,836) 
 (4,801) (4,635) (8,720) (2,869)
Amortization of prior service credit (5,110) (7,735) (1,823) (745) (2,316) (1,513)
Recognized net loss 4,460
 1,859
 1,675
 418
 3,303
 1,560
Net other postretirement benefit (income)/cost 
($4,015) 
$12,598
 
($1,030) 
($2,521) 
($1,751) 
$692
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)            
Arising this period:            
Net (gain)/loss (29,534) (1,256) 506
 (7,342) (22,255) (5,459)
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic pension cost in the current year: 
          
Amortization of prior service credit 5,110
 7,735
 1,823
 745
 2,316
 1,513
Amortization of net loss (4,460) (1,859) (1,675) (418) (3,303) (1,560)
Total 
($28,884) 
$4,620
 
$654
 
($7,015) 
($23,242) 
($5,506)
Total recognized as net periodic other postretirement income/(cost), regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax) 
($32,899) 
$17,218
 
($376) 
($9,536) 
($24,993) 
($4,814)
Estimated amortization amounts from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic cost  in the following year            
Prior service credit 
($5,110) 
($7,735) 
($1,823) 
($745) 
($2,316) 
($1,513)
Net loss 
$1,154
 
$1,550
 
$1,508
 
$137
 
$823
 
$932



169
173

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






2019Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Other postretirement costs:      
Service cost - benefits earned during the period$2,363 $4,639 $1,046 $367 $943 $973 
Interest cost on APBO7,226 10,664 2,681 1,581 3,415 1,902 
Expected return on assets(15,962)(4,794)(4,947)(9,103)(2,788)
Amortization of prior service credit(4,950)(7,349)(1,756)(682)(2,243)(1,450)
Recognized net (gain)/loss576 (695)723 231 485 354 
Net other postretirement benefit (income)/cost($10,747)$7,259 ($2,100)($3,450)($6,503)($1,009)
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)      
Arising this period:      
Net gain($26,707)($2,220)($11,950)($10,967)($6,406)($5,539)
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic benefit cost in the current year:      
Amortization of prior service credit4,950 7,349 1,756 682 2,243 1,450 
Amortization of net (gain)/ loss(576)695 (723)(231)(485)(354)
Total($22,333)$5,824 ($10,917)($10,516)($4,648)($4,443)
Total recognized as net periodic other postretirement (income)/cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax)($33,080)$13,083 ($13,017)($13,966)($11,151)($5,452)

174
2016 Entergy Arkansas
Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Other postretirement costs:            
Service cost - benefits earned during the period 
$3,913
 
$7,476
 
$1,543
 
$622
 
$1,590
 
$1,337
Interest cost on APBO 9,297
 13,041
 2,835
 1,791
 4,154
 2,117
Expected return on assets (17,855) 
 (5,517) (4,617) (9,575) (3,257)
Amortization of prior service credit (5,472) (7,787) (934) (745) (2,722) (1,570)
Recognized net loss 4,256
 2,926
 893
 146
 2,148
 1,149
Net other postretirement benefit (income)/cost 
($5,861) 
$15,656
 
($1,180) 
($2,803) 
($4,405) 
($224)
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)            
Arising this period:            
Prior service credit for the period 
($1,007) 
($4,647) 
($6,219) 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
Net (gain)/loss 3,331
 (13,117) 8,715
 5,717
 13,378
 4,997
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic pension cost in the current year:            
Amortization of prior service credit 5,472
 7,787
 934
 745
 2,722
 1,570
Amortization of net loss (4,256) (2,926) (893) (146) (2,148) (1,149)
Total 
$3,540
 
($12,903) 
$2,537
 
$6,316
 
$13,952
 
$5,418
Total recognized as net periodic other postretirement income/(cost), regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax) 
($2,321) 
$2,753
 
$1,357
 
$3,513
 
$9,547
 
$5,194
Estimated amortization amounts from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic cost  in the following year            
Prior service credit 
($5,110) 
($7,739) 
($1,824) 
($745) 
($2,316) 
($1,513)
Net loss 
$4,460
 
$1,859
 
$1,675
 
$418
 
$3,303
 
$1,560


170

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



2018Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Other postretirement costs:      
Service cost - benefits earned during the period$3,170 $6,225 $1,284 $516 $1,319 $1,223 
Interest cost on APBO7,986 11,154 2,731 1,669 3,754 1,998 
Expected return on assets(17,368)(5,213)(5,250)(9,784)(3,130)
Amortization of prior service credit(5,110)(7,735)(1,823)(745)(2,316)(1,513)
Recognized net loss1,154 1,550 1,508 137 823 932 
Net other postretirement benefit (income)/cost($10,168)$11,194 ($1,513)($3,673)($6,204)($490)
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)      
Arising this period:      
Net gain(32,219)(73,249)(7,794)(981)(10,561)(6,680)
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic benefit cost in the current year:      
Amortization of prior service credit5,110 7,735 1,823 745 2,316 1,513 
Amortization of net loss(1,154)(1,550)(1,508)(137)(823)(932)
Total($28,263)($67,064)($7,479)($373)($9,068)($6,099)
Total recognized as net periodic other postretirement (income)/cost, regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax)($38,431)($55,870)($8,992)($4,046)($15,272)($6,589)

175
2015 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Other postretirement costs:            
Service cost - benefits earned during the period 
$6,957
 
$9,893
 
$2,028
 
$818
 
$2,000
 
$1,881
Interest cost on APBO 12,518
 16,311
 3,436
 2,608
 5,366
 2,511
Expected return on assets (19,190) 
 (6,166) (4,804) (10,351) (3,644)
Amortization of prior service credit (2,441) (7,467) (916) (709) (2,723) (1,465)
Recognized net loss 5,356
 7,118
 860
 470
 2,740
 1,198
Net other postretirement benefit (income)/cost 
$3,200
 
$25,855
 
($758) 
($1,617) 
($2,968) 
$481
Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as a regulatory asset and/or AOCI (before tax)            
Arising this period:            
Prior service credit for the period 
($18,035) 
($1,361) 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
($644)
Net (gain)/loss (11,978) (47,043) 774
 (5,810) (4,907) 305
Amounts reclassified from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic pension cost in the current year:            
Amortization of prior service credit 2,441
 7,467
 916
 709
 2,723
 1,465
Amortization of net loss (5,356) (7,118) (860) (470) (2,740) (1,198)
Total 
($32,928) 
($48,055) 
$830
 
($5,571) 
($4,924) 
($72)
Total recognized as net periodic other postretirement income/(cost), regulatory asset, and/or AOCI (before tax) 
($29,728) 
($22,200) 
$72
 
($7,188) 
($7,892) 
$409
Estimated amortization amounts from regulatory asset and/or AOCI to net periodic cost  in the following year            
Prior service credit 
($5,472) 
($7,783) 
($933) 
($745) 
($2,722) 
($1,570)
Net loss 
$4,256
 
$2,926
 
$893
 
$146
 
$2,148
 
$1,149


171

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






Other Postretirement Benefit Obligations, Plan Assets, Funded Status, and Amounts Not Yet Recognized and Recognized in the Balance Sheet


Other postretirement benefit obligations, plan assets, funded status, and amounts not yet recognized and recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheets of Entergy Corporation and its Subsidiaries as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are as follows:
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
Change in APBO  
Balance at January 1$1,252,903 $1,232,619 
Service cost24,500 18,699 
Interest cost28,597 47,901 
Plan amendments(128,837)
Plan participant contributions37,176 38,640 
Actuarial loss80,162 23,673 
Benefits paid(113,786)(109,223)
Medicare Part D subsidy received360 594 
Balance at December 31$1,181,075 $1,252,903 
Change in Plan Assets  
Fair value of assets at January 1$686,262 $609,782 
Actual return on plan assets80,011 100,445 
Employer contributions48,203 46,618 
Plan participant contributions37,176 38,640 
Benefits paid(113,786)(109,223)
Fair value of assets at December 31$737,866 $686,262 
Funded status($443,209)($566,641)
Amounts recognized in the balance sheet  
Current liabilities($38,963)($48,040)
Non-current liabilities(404,246)(518,601)
Total funded status($443,209)($566,641)
Amounts recognized as a regulatory asset  
Prior service credit($45,501)($11,899)
Net gain(8,565)(5,081)
 ($54,066)($16,980)
Amounts recognized as AOCI (before tax)  
Prior service credit($83,581)($21,231)
Net (gain)/loss24,365 (16,670)
 ($59,216)($37,901)
 2017 2016
 (In Thousands)
Change in APBO 
  
Balance at January 1
$1,568,963
 
$1,530,829
Service cost26,915
 32,291
Interest cost55,838
 56,331
Plan amendments(2,564) (20,353)
Plan participant contributions35,080
 27,686
Actuarial (gain)/loss(23,409) 46,201
Benefits paid(97,829) (104,477)
Medicare Part D subsidy received493
 455
Balance at December 31
$1,563,487
 
$1,568,963
Change in Plan Assets 
  
Fair value of assets at January 1
$596,660
 
$579,069
Actual return on plan assets81,143
 38,216
Employer contributions44,273
 56,166
Plan participant contributions35,080
 27,686
Benefits paid(97,829) (104,477)
Fair value of assets at December 31
$659,327
 
$596,660
Funded status
($904,160) 
($972,303)
Amounts recognized in the balance sheet   
Current liabilities
($45,237) 
($45,255)
Non-current liabilities(858,923) (927,048)
Total funded status
($904,160) 
($972,303)
Amounts recognized as a regulatory asset   
Prior service credit
($40,461) 
($54,896)
Net loss144,966
 222,540
 
$104,505
 
$167,644
Amounts recognized as AOCI (before tax)   
Prior service credit
($65,047) 
($89,474)
Net loss161,322
 172,575
 
$96,275
 
$83,101



172
176

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Other postretirement benefit obligations, plan assets, funded status, and amounts not yet recognized and recognized in the Balance Sheets of the Registrant Subsidiaries as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are as follows:
2020Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Change in APBO      
Balance at January 1$185,744 $274,175 $65,979 $38,460 $94,742 $47,348 
Service cost3,626 5,993 1,468 445 1,219 1,254 
Interest cost4,712 6,216 1,536 784 2,008 1,130 
Plan amendments12,320 (23,508)(4,428)(5,493)(22,441)(1,963)
Plan participant contributions7,792 8,269 2,122 1,123 2,456 1,732 
Actuarial (gain)/loss18,257 8,744 684 (91)5,952 3,025 
Benefits paid(23,141)(24,395)(5,382)(3,530)(9,721)(4,851)
Medicare Part D subsidy received59 77 11 18 26 
Balance at December 31$209,369 $255,571 $61,990 $31,707 $74,233 $47,701 
Change in Plan Assets      
Fair value of assets at January 1$284,224 $0 $86,085 $93,858 $161,810 $48,471 
Actual return on plan assets33,116 10,307 10,642 18,861 5,925 
Employer contributions2,201 16,126 343 641 690 1,342 
Plan participant contributions7,792 8,269 2,122 1,123 2,456 1,732 
Benefits paid(23,141)(24,395)(5,382)(3,530)(9,721)(4,851)
Fair value of assets at December 31$304,192 $0 $93,475 $102,734 $174,096 $52,619 
Funded status$94,823 ($255,571)$31,485 $71,027 $99,863 $4,918 
Amounts recognized in the balance sheet      
Current liabilities$0 ($15,580)$0 $0 $0 $0 
Non-current liabilities94,823 (239,991)31,485 71,027 99,863 4,918 
Total funded status$94,823 ($255,571)$31,485 $71,027 $99,863 $4,918 
Amounts recognized in regulatory asset      
Prior service cost/(credit)$7,655 $0 ($5,884)($4,730)($20,498)($1,754)
Net (gain)/loss(16,557)(1,355)(13,385)2,030 2,818 
 ($8,902)$0 ($7,239)($18,115)($18,468)$1,064 
Amounts recognized in AOCI (before tax)      
Prior service credit$0 ($22,244)$0 $0 $0 $0 
Net gain(15,548)
 $0 ($37,792)$0 $0 $0 $0 
2017 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Change in APBO            
Balance at January 1 
$258,787
 
$342,500
 
$78,485
 
$55,515
 
$127,700
 
$62,498
Service cost 3,451
 6,373
 1,160
 567
 1,488
 1,278
Interest cost 9,020
 12,101
 2,759
 1,874
 4,494
 2,236
Plan participant contributions 7,875
 7,855
 2,160
 1,151
 2,453
 1,779
Actuarial (gain)/loss (11,691) (1,256) 5,858
 (899) (12,469) (2,233)
Benefits paid (18,497) (22,273) (5,823) (4,670) (6,980) (4,205)
Medicare Part D subsidy received 74
 89
 22
 10
 16
 28
Balance at December 31 
$249,019
 
$345,389
 
$84,621
 
$53,548
 
$116,702
 
$61,381
Change in Plan Assets            
Fair value of assets at January 1 
$250,926
 
$—
 
$75,945
 
$74,236
 
$137,069
 
$44,885
Actual return on plan assets 33,679
 
 10,153
 11,078
 18,506
 6,095
Employer contributions 695
 14,418
 (2) 3,709
 3,123
 570
Plan participant contributions 7,875
 7,855
 2,160
 1,151
 2,453
 1,779
Benefits paid (18,497) (22,273) (5,823) (4,670) (6,980) (4,205)
Fair value of assets at December 31 
$274,678
 
$—
 
$82,433
 
$85,504
 
$154,171
 
$49,124
Funded status 
$25,659
 
($345,389) 
($2,188) 
$31,956
 
$37,469
 
($12,257)
Amounts recognized in the balance sheet            
Current liabilities 
$—
 
($18,794) 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
Non-current liabilities 25,659
 (326,595) (2,188) 31,956
 37,469
 (12,257)
Total funded status 
$25,659
 
($345,389) 
($2,188) 
$31,956
 
$37,469
 
($12,257)
Amounts recognized in regulatory asset            
Prior service credit 
($16,574) 
$—
 
($6,687) 
($1,427) 
($5,980) 
($3,819)
Net loss 42,394
 
 25,247
 4,269
 24,478
 16,386
  
$25,820
 
$—
 
$18,560
 
$2,842
 
$18,498
 
$12,567
Amounts recognized in AOCI (before tax)            
Prior service credit 
$—
 
($19,999) 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
Net loss 
 51,585
 
 
 
 
  
$—
 
$31,586
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—





173
177

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






2019Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Change in APBO      
Balance at January 1$187,830 $275,269 $68,976 $41,987 $88,310 $48,791 
Service cost2,363 4,639 1,046 367 943 973 
Interest cost7,226 10,664 2,681 1,581 3,415 1,902 
Plan participant contributions8,125 8,876 2,197 1,343 2,602 1,765 
Actuarial (gain)/loss166 (2,220)(3,778)(4,234)8,279 (891)
Benefits paid(20,048)(23,160)(5,159)(2,598)(8,830)(5,229)
Medicare Part D subsidy received82 107 16 14 23 37 
Balance at December 31$185,744 $274,175 $65,979 $38,460 $94,742 $47,348 
Change in Plan Assets      
Fair value of assets at January 1$252,055 $0 $75,853 $81,774 $144,846 $43,670 
Actual return on plan assets42,835 12,966 11,680 23,788 7,436 
Employer contributions1,257 14,284 228 1,659 (596)829 
Plan participant contributions8,125 8,876 2,197 1,343 2,602 1,765 
Benefits paid(20,048)(23,160)(5,159)(2,598)(8,830)(5,229)
Fair value of assets at December 31$284,224 $0 $86,085 $93,858 $161,810 $48,471 
Funded status$98,480 ($274,175)$20,106 $55,398 $67,068 $1,123 
Amounts recognized in the balance sheet      
Current liabilities$0 ($18,467)$0 $0 $0 $0 
Non-current liabilities98,480 (255,708)20,106 55,398 67,068 1,123 
Total funded status$98,480 ($274,175)$20,106 $55,398 $67,068 $1,123 
Amounts recognized in regulatory asset      
Prior service credit($6,515)$0 ($3,108)$0 ($1,422)($854)
Net (gain)/loss(18,262)3,272 (8,046)6,203 2,881 
 ($24,777)$0 $164 ($8,046)$4,781 $2,027 
Amounts recognized in AOCI (before tax)      
Prior service credit$0 ($4,915)$0 $0 $0 $0 
Net gain(24,739)
 $0 ($29,654)$0 $0 $0 $0 

The other postretirement plans incurred actuarial losses during 2020 primarily due to a reduction in the projected Employer Group Waiver Plan (EGWP) revenue and a fall in bond yields that resulted in decreases to the discount rates used to develop the benefit obligations. These losses were partially offset by gains resulting from the actual return on assets exceeding the expected return on assets for 2020, an update to the latest mortality projection scale MP-2020, and favorable claims experience. The other postretirement plans experienced actuarial gains during 2019 primarily due to the actual return on assets exceeding the expected return on assets for 2019, favorable claims
178
2016 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Change in APBO            
Balance at January 1 
$258,900
 
$356,253
 
$77,382
 
$51,951
 
$114,582
 
$57,645
Service cost 3,913
 7,476
 1,543
 622
 1,590
 1,337
Interest cost 9,297
 13,041
 2,835
 1,791
 4,154
 2,117
Plan amendments (1,007) (4,647) (6,219) 
 
 
Plan participant contributions 6,330
 6,273
 1,721
 1,213
 1,927
 1,390
Actuarial (gain)/loss 2,453
 (13,117) 8,230
 4,774
 12,389
 4,806
Benefits paid (21,178) (22,893) (7,031) (4,852) (6,977) (4,818)
Medicare Part D subsidy received 79
 114
 24
 16
 35
 21
Balance at December 31 
$258,787
 
$342,500
 
$78,485
 
$55,515
 
$127,700
 
$62,498
Change in Plan Assets            
Fair value of assets at January 1 
$243,206
 
$—
 
$75,538
 
$69,881
 
$130,374
 
$44,917
Actual return on plan assets 16,977
 
 5,032
 3,674
 8,586
 3,066
Employer contributions 5,591
 16,620
 685
 4,320
 3,159
 330
Plan participant contributions 6,330
 6,273
 1,721
 1,213
 1,927
 1,390
Benefits paid (21,178) (22,893) (7,031) (4,852) (6,977) (4,818)
Fair value of assets at December 31 
$250,926
 
$—
 
$75,945
 
$74,236
 
$137,069
 
$44,885
Funded status 
($7,861) 
($342,500) 
($2,540) 
$18,721
 
$9,369
 
($17,613)
Amounts recognized in the balance sheet            
Current liabilities 
$—
 
($19,209) 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
Non-current liabilities (7,861) (323,291) (2,540) 18,721
 9,369
 (17,613)
Total funded status 
($7,861) 
($342,500) 
($2,540) 
$18,721
 
$9,369
 
($17,613)
Amounts recognized in regulatory asset            
Prior service credit 
($21,684) 
$—
 
($8,511) 
($2,172) 
($8,296) 
($5,332)
Net loss 76,388
 
 26,416
 12,029
 50,036
 23,405
  
$54,704
 
$—
 
$17,905
 
$9,857
 
$41,740
 
$18,073
Amounts recognized in AOCI (before tax)            
Prior service credit 
$—
 
($27,735) 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
Net loss 
 54,700
 
 
 
 
  
$—
 
$26,965
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—


174

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



experience, an increase in projected EGWP revenue, and the adoption of the Pri.H-2012 mortality table with improvement scale MP-2019. These gains were partially offset by losses resulting from a fall in bond yields that resulted in decreases to the discount rates used to develop the benefit obligations.

Non-Qualified Pension Plans


Entergy also sponsors non-qualified, non-contributory defined benefit pension plans that provide benefits to certain key employees.  Entergy recognized net periodic pension cost related to these plans of $37.6$18.1 million in 2017, $24.92020, $22.6 million in 2016,2019, and $22.8$24.4 million in 2015.2018.  In 2017, 2016,2019, and 20152018 Entergy recognized $20.3 million, $8.1$7.4 million and $5.1$7.7 million, respectively in settlement charges related to the payment of lump sum benefits out of the plan that is included in the non-qualified pension plan cost above.

The projected benefit obligation was $162.3 million and $169.3$182.4 million as of December 31, 20172020 of which $22.9 million was a current liability and 2016, respectively.$159.5 million was a non-current liability. The projected benefit obligation was $162.8 million as of December 31, 2019 of which $18.1 million was a current liability and $144.6 million was a non-current liability.  The accumulated benefit obligation was $144.7$161.3 million and $151.0$143.4 million as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016, respectively.

Entergy’s non-qualified, non-current pension liability at December 31, 2017 and 2016 was $136 million and $137.6 million, respectively; and its current liability was $26.4 million and $31.7 million,2019, respectively. The unamortized prior service cost and net loss are recognized in regulatory assets ($55.277.3 million at December 31, 20172020 and $59.8$58.8 million at December 31, 2016)2019) and accumulated other comprehensive income before taxes ($35.916.7 million at December 31, 20172020 and $31.6$24.9 million at December 31, 2016)2019).


The following Registrant Subsidiaries participate in Entergy’s non-qualified, non-contributory defined benefit pension plans that provide benefits to certain key employees.  The net periodic pension cost for their employees for the non-qualified plans for 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, was as follows:
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
 (In Thousands)
2020$333 $148 $359 $31 $469 
2019$275 $159 $326 $20 $481 
2018$474 $180 $300 $81 $650 
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas
 (In Thousands)
2017
$679
 
$185
 
$251
 
$73
 
$499
2016
$1,819
 
$231
 
$236
 
$65
 
$504
2015
$446
 
$377
 
$235
 
$64
 
$595


Included in the 20172019 net periodic pension cost above are settlement charges of $269$40 thousand for Entergy ArkansasMississippi related to the lump sum benefits paid out of the plan. Included in the 20162018 net periodic pension cost above are settlement charges of $1.4 million$30 thousand and $1$139 thousand for Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi, respectively, related to the lump sum benefits paid out of the plan. Included in the 2015 net periodic pension cost above are settlement charges of $108 thousand and $2 thousand for Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Mississippi,Texas, respectively, related to the lump sum benefits paid out of the plan.


The projected benefit obligation for their employees for the non-qualified plans as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 was as follows:
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
 (In Thousands)
2020$3,197 $1,965 $3,852 $247 $8,475 
2019$2,755 $1,682 $3,286 $231 $7,783 
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas
 (In Thousands)
2017
$4,221
 
$2,061
 
$2,737
 
$583
 
$8,913
2016
$3,897
 
$2,134
 
$2,296
 
$514
 
$8,665



175
179

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






The accumulated benefit obligation for their employees for the non-qualified plans as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 was as follows:
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
 (In Thousands)
2020$2,626 $1,802 $3,345 $240 $7,949 
2019$2,248 $1,682 $2,938 $230 $7,391 
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas
 (In Thousands)
2017
$3,825
 
$2,061
 
$2,250
 
$519
 
$8,602
2016
$3,439
 
$2,134
 
$1,961
 
$452
 
$8,333


The following amounts were recorded on the balance sheet as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016:2019:
2020Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
 (In Thousands)
Current liabilities($218)($193)($181)($17)($633)
Non-current liabilities(2,979)(1,772)(3,671)(230)(7,842)
Total funded status($3,197)($1,965)($3,852)($247)($8,475)
Regulatory asset/(liability)$1,535 $424 $1,757 ($558)$147 
Accumulated other comprehensive income (before taxes)$0 $18 $0 $0 $0 

2019Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
 (In Thousands)
Current liabilities($249)($216)($357)($17)($723)
Non-current liabilities(2,506)(1,467)(2,930)(215)(7,060)
Total funded status($2,755)($1,683)($3,287)($232)($7,783)
Regulatory asset/(liability)$1,232 $3 $1,432 ($559)($603)

The non-qualified pension plans incurred actuarial losses during 2020 and 2019 primarily due to a fall in bond yields that resulted in decreases to the discount rates used to develop the benefit obligations.
180
2017 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas
  (In Thousands)
Current liabilities 
($376) 
($231) 
($135) 
($21) 
($788)
Non-current liabilities (3,845) (1,830) (2,603) (562) (8,125)
Total funded status 
($4,221) 
($2,061) 
($2,738) 
($583) 
($8,913)
Regulatory asset/(liability) 
$2,995
 
$166
 
$1,186
 
($140) 
$133
Accumulated other comprehensive income (before taxes) 
$—
 
$11
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—

2016 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas
  (In Thousands)
Current liabilities 
($242) 
($233) 
($137) 
($20) 
($773)
Non-current liabilities (3,655) (1,901) (2,159) (495) (7,892)
Total funded status 
($3,897) 
($2,134) 
($2,296) 
($515) 
($8,665)
Regulatory asset/(liability) 
$2,914
 
$175
 
$876
 
($148) 
($316)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (before taxes) 
$—
 
$13
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—


176

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Reclassification out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)


Entergy and Entergy Louisiana reclassified the following costs out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (before taxes and including amounts capitalized) as of December 31, 2017:2020:

Qualified Pension Costs Other Postretirement Costs Non-Qualified Pension Costs Total Qualified Pension CostsOther Postretirement CostsNon-Qualified Pension CostsTotal
(In Thousands) (In Thousands)
Entergy       Entergy  
Amortization of prior service cost
($261) 
$26,867
 
($355) 
$26,251
Amortization of prior service cost$0 $21,000 ($231)$20,769 
Amortization of loss(73,800) (8,805) (3,397) (86,002)Amortization of loss(105,853)(1,006)(3,326)(110,185)
Settlement loss
 
 (7,544) (7,544)Settlement loss(243)(243)

($74,061) 
$18,062
 
($11,296) 
($67,295)($106,096)$19,994 ($3,557)($89,659)
Entergy Louisiana       Entergy Louisiana  
Amortization of prior service cost
$—
 
$7,735
 
($1) 
$7,734
Amortization of prior service cost$0 $6,179 $0 $6,179 
Amortization of loss(3,459) (1,859) (9) (5,327)Amortization of loss(2,001)447 (3)(1,557)
Settlement lossSettlement loss(243)(243)

($3,459) 
$5,876
 
($10) 
$2,407
($2,244)$6,626 ($3)$4,379 


Entergy and Entergy Louisiana reclassified the following costs out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (before taxes and including amounts capitalized) as of December 31, 2016:2019:

Qualified Pension Costs Other Postretirement Costs Non-Qualified Pension Costs Total Qualified Pension CostsOther Postretirement CostsNon-Qualified Pension CostsTotal
(In Thousands) (In Thousands)
Entergy       Entergy  
Amortization of prior service cost
($1,079)

$30,949
 
($456) 
$29,414
Amortization of prior service cost$0 $21,498 ($198)$21,300 
Acceleration of prior service cost due to curtailment(1,045) 
 
 (1,045)
Amortization of loss(49,930) (8,248) (2,515) (60,693)Amortization of loss(82,284)1,230 (2,192)(83,246)
Settlement loss
 
 (2,007) (2,007)Settlement loss(23,458)(1,697)(25,155)

($52,054) 
$22,701
 
($4,978) 
($34,331)($105,742)$22,728 ($4,087)($87,101)
Entergy Louisiana       Entergy Louisiana  
Amortization of prior service cost
$—


$7,787
 
($1) 
$7,786
Amortization of prior service cost$0 $7,349 $0 $7,349 
Amortization of loss(3,345) (2,926) (10) (6,281)Amortization of loss(2,795)695 (6)(2,106)

($3,345) 
$4,861
 
($11) 
$1,505
($2,795)$8,044 ($6)$5,243 


Accounting for Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits


Accounting standards require an employer to recognize in its balance sheet the funded status of its benefit plans.  This is measured as the difference between plan assets at fair value and the benefit obligation.  Entergy uses a December 31 measurement date for its pension and other postretirement plans.  Employers are to record previously unrecognized gains and losses, prior service costs, and any remaining transition asset or obligation (that resulted from adopting prior pension and other postretirement benefits accounting standards) as comprehensive income and/or as a regulatory asset reflective of the recovery mechanism for pension and other postretirement benefit costs in the Registrant Subsidiaries’ respective regulatory jurisdictions.  For the portion of Entergy Louisiana that is not regulated, the unrecognized prior service cost, gains and losses, and transition asset/obligation for its pension and other postretirement benefit obligations are recorded as other comprehensive income.  Entergy Louisiana recovers other postretirement benefit costs on a pay-as-you-go basis and records the unrecognized prior
181

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




service cost, gains and losses, and transition obligation for its other postretirement benefit obligation as other comprehensive income.  Accounting standards also

177

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


require that changes in the funded status be recorded as other comprehensive income and/or a regulatory asset in the period in which the changes occur.


With regard to pension and other postretirement costs, Entergy calculates the expected return on pension and other postretirement benefit plan assets by multiplying the long-term expected rate of return on assets by the market-related value (MRV) of plan assets.  In general, Entergy determines the MRV of its pension plan assets by calculating a value that uses a 20-quarter phase-in of the difference between actual and expected returns.  Forreturns and for its other postretirement benefit plan assets Entergy generally uses fair value when determining MRV.value.


In accordance with ASU No. 2017-07, “Compensation - Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost”, the other components of net benefit cost are required to be presented in the income statement separately from the service cost component and outside a subtotal of income from operations and are presented by Entergy in miscellaneous - net in other income.

Qualified Pension Settlement Cost

In 2020, year-to-date lump sum benefit payments from the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan for Bargaining Employees exceeded the sum of the Plan’s 2020 service and interest cost, resulting in a settlement cost of $36.9 million. In accordance with accounting standards, settlement accounting requires immediate recognition of the portion of previously unrecognized losses associated with the settled portion of the plan’s pension liability. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Texas participate in the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan for Bargaining Employees and incurred settlement costs of $21.1 million, $8.1 million, $3.4 million, and $4.3 million, respectively. The settlement costs were included with employee labor costs and charged to expense and capital in the same manner that labor costs were charged. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy Mississippi received regulatory approval to defer the expense portion of the settlement costs, with future amortization of the deferred settlement expense over the period in which the expense otherwise would be recorded had the immediate recognition not occurred.

Entergy Texas Reserve

In 2020, Entergy Texas elected to establish a reserve, in accordance with PUCT regulations, for the difference between the amount recorded for pension and other postretirement benefits expense under generally accepted accounting principles during the first year that rates from Entergy Texas’s last general rate proceeding were in effect, and the annual amount of actuarially determined pension and other postretirement benefits chargeable to Entergy Texas’s expense in 2020. The reserve amount will be evaluated in Entergy Texas’s next base rate case proceeding and a reasonable amortization period will be determined by the PUCT at that time. At December 31, 2020, the balance in this reserve was approximately $3.8 million.

Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Plans’ Assets


The Plan Administrator’s trust asset investment strategy is to invest the assets in a manner whereby long-term earnings on the assets (plus cash contributions) provide adequate funding for retiree benefit payments.  The mix of assets is based on an optimization study that identifies asset allocation targets in order to achieve the maximum return for an acceptable level of risk, while minimizing the expected contributions and pension and postretirement expense.


In the optimization studies, the Plan Administrator formulates assumptions about characteristics, such as expected asset class investment returns, volatility (risk), and correlation coefficients among the various asset classes.  The future market assumptions used in the optimization study are determined by examining historical market characteristics of the various asset classes and making adjustments to reflect future conditions expected to prevail over the study period.

182

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


The target asset allocation for pension adjusts dynamically based on the pension plans’ funded status. The current targets are shown below. The expectation is that the allocation to fixed income securities will increase as the pension plans’ funded status increases.  The following ranges were established to produce an acceptable, economically efficient plan to manage around the targets.


For postretirement assets the target and range asset allocations (as shown below) reflect recommendations made in the latest optimization study. The target asset allocations for postretirement assets adjust dynamically based on the funded status of each sub-account within each trust. The current weighted average targets shown below represent the aggregate of all targets for all sub-accounts within all trusts.


Entergy’s qualified pension and postretirement weighted-average asset allocations by asset category at December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 and the target asset allocation and ranges for 20172020 are as follows:

Pension Asset Allocation Target Range Actual 2017 Actual 2016Pension Asset AllocationTargetRangeActual 2020Actual 2019
Domestic Equity Securities 45% 37%to53% 45% 46%Domestic Equity Securities39%32%to46%38%39%
International Equity Securities 20% 16%to24% 20% 20%International Equity Securities19%15%to23%19%19%
Fixed Income Securities 35% 32%to38% 34% 33%Fixed Income Securities42%39%to45%42%41%
Other 0% 0%to10% 1% 1%Other0%0%to10%1%1%


Postretirement Asset AllocationNon-Taxable and Taxable
 TargetRangeActual 2020Actual 2019
Domestic Equity Securities26%21%to31%29%29%
International Equity Securities18%13%to23%18%18%
Fixed Income Securities56%51%to61%53%53%
Other0%0%to5%0%0%
Postretirement Asset Allocation Non-Taxable and Taxable
  Target Range Actual 2017 Actual 2016
Domestic Equity Securities 27% 22%to32% 30% 40%
International Equity Securities 18% 13%to23% 20% 27%
Fixed Income Securities 55% 50%to60% 50% 33%
Other 0% 0%to5% 0% 0%



178

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



In determining its expected long-term rate of return on plan assets used in the calculation of benefit plan costs, Entergy reviews past performance, current and expected future asset allocations, and capital market assumptions of its investment consultant and some investment managers.


The expected long-term rate of return for the qualified pension plans’ assets is based primarily on the geometric average of the historical annual performance of a representative portfolio weighted by the target asset allocation defined in the table above, along with other indications of expected return on assets. The time period reflected is a long datedlong-dated period spanning several decades.


The expected long-term rate of return for the non-taxable postretirement trust assets is determined using the same methodology described above for pension assets, but the aggregate asset allocation specific to the non-taxable postretirement assets is used.


For the taxable postretirement trust assets, the investment allocation includes tax-exempt fixed income securities.  This asset allocation, in combination with the same methodology employed to determine the expected return for other postretirement assets (as described above), and with a modification to reflect applicable taxes, is used to produce the expected long-term rate of return for taxable postretirement trust assets.


Concentrations of Credit Risk


Entergy’s investment guidelines mandate the avoidance of risk concentrations.  Types of concentrations specified to be avoided include, but are not limited to, investment concentrations in a single entity, type of industry,
183

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




foreign country, geographic area and individual security issuance.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, all investment managers and assets were materially in compliance with the approved investment guidelines, therefore there were no significant concentrations (defined as greater than 10 percent of plan assets) of credit risk in Entergy’s pension and other postretirement benefit plan assets.


Fair Value Measurements


Accounting standards provide the framework for measuring fair value. That framework provides a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value.  The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements).


The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:


Level 1 - Level 1 inputs are unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets that the Plan has the ability to access at the measurement date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis.


Level 2 - Level 2 inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are, either directly or indirectly, observable for the asset or liability at the measurement date.  Assets are valued based on prices derived by an independent party that uses inputs such as benchmark yields, reported trades, broker/dealer quotes, and issuer spreads.  Prices are reviewed and can be challenged with the independent parties and/or overridden if it is believed such would be more reflective of fair value.  Level 2 inputs include the following:


-     quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets;
-     quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in inactive markets;
-     inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability; or
-    inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means.

179

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


If an asset or liability has a specified (contractual) term, the Level 2 input must be observable for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.


Level 3 - Level 3 refers to securities valued based on significant unobservable inputs.

Assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.  The following tables set forth by level within the fair value hierarchy, measured at fair value on a recurring basis at December 31, 2017,2020, and December 31, 2016,2019, a summary of the investments held in the master trusts for Entergy’s qualified pension and other postretirement plans in which the Registrant Subsidiaries participate.


Qualified Defined Benefit Pension Plan Trusts

184
2017 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Thousands)
Equity securities:        
Corporate stocks:        
Preferred 
$11,461
(b)
$—
 
$—
 
$11,461
Common 663,923
(b)34
(b)
 663,957
Common collective trusts (c) 

 

 

 3,198,799
Registered investment companies 125,174
(d)
 
 125,174
Fixed income securities:        
U.S. Government securities 
(b)638,832
(a)
 638,832
Corporate debt instruments 
 619,735
(a)
 619,735
Registered investment companies (e) 45,768
(d)2,735
(d)
 764,251
Other 46
(f)62,559
(f)
 62,605
Other:        
Insurance company general account (unallocated contracts) 
 37,994
(g)
 37,994
Total investments 
$846,372
 
$1,361,889
 
$—
 
$6,122,808
Cash       1,508
Other pending transactions       5,179
Less: Other postretirement assets included in total investments       (58,179)
Total fair value of qualified pension assets       
$6,071,316


180

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Qualified Defined Benefit Pension Plan Trusts


2020Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Total
 (In Thousands)
Equity securities:      
Corporate stocks:      
Preferred$15,756 (b)$0 $0 $15,756 
Common1,031,213 (b)(b)1,031,213 
Common collective trusts (c)0 002,958,767 
Registered investment companies(d)
Fixed income securities:      
U.S. Government securities731,319 (a)731,319 
Corporate debt instruments 1,029,370 (a)1,029,370 
Registered investment companies (e)81,800 (d)3,076 (d)1,128,107 
Other156 (f)56,323 (f)56,479 
Other:      
Insurance company general account (unallocated contracts) 6,253 (g)6,253 
Total investments$1,128,925  $1,826,341  $0 $6,957,264 
Cash     2,316 
Other pending transactions     (29,121)
Less: Other postretirement assets included in total investments     (76,033)
Total fair value of qualified pension assets     $6,854,426 

185
2016 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Thousands)
Short-term investments 
$—
 
$3,610
(a)
$—
 
$3,610
Equity securities:        
Corporate stocks:        
Preferred 6,423
(b)
 
 6,423
Common 745,715
(b)39
(b)
 745,754
Common collective trusts (c) 

 

 

 2,072,743
103-12 investment entities (h) 
 
 
 335,818
Registered investment companies 258,879
(d)
 
 258,879
Fixed income securities:        
U.S. Government securities 136
(b)370,545
(a)
 370,681
Corporate debt instruments 
 630,726
(a)
 630,726
Registered investment companies (e) 35,216
(d)2,695
(d)
 640,836
Other 34
(f)105,613
(f)
 105,647
Other:        
Insurance company general account (unallocated contracts) 
 37,111
(g)
 37,111
Total investments 
$1,046,403
 
$1,150,339
 
$—
 
$5,208,228
Cash       929
Other pending transactions       8,869
Less: Other postretirement assets included in total investments       (46,824)
Total fair value of qualified pension assets       
$5,171,202

Other Postretirement Trusts
2017 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Thousands)
Equity securities:        
Common collective trust (c)       
$300,139
Fixed income securities:        
U.S. Government securities 81,602
(b)76,790
(a)
 158,392
Corporate debt instruments 
 92,869
(a)
 92,869
Registered investment companies 3,127
(d)
 
 3,127
Other 
 45,627
(f)
 45,627
Total investments 
$84,729
 
$215,286
 
$—
 
$600,154
Other pending transactions       994
Plus:  Other postretirement assets included in the investments of the qualified pension trust       58,179
Total fair value of other postretirement assets       
$659,327


181

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






2019Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Total
 (In Thousands)
Equity securities:      
Corporate stocks:      
Preferred$10,379 (b)$0 $0 $10,379 
Common857,159 (b)(b)857,159 
Common collective trusts (c)0 002,698,697 
Registered investment companies132,389 (d)132,389 
Fixed income securities:      
U.S. Government securities(b)805,671 (a)805,671 
Corporate debt instruments 762,577 (a)762,577 
Registered investment companies (e)53,842 (d)2,903 (d)1,008,371 
Other73 (f)43,106 (f)43,179 
Other:      
Insurance company general account (unallocated contracts) 40,452 (g)40,452 
Total investments$1,053,842  $1,654,709  $0 $6,358,874 
Cash     1,407 
Other pending transactions     (22,549)
Less: Other postretirement assets included in total investments     (66,572)
Total fair value of qualified pension assets     $6,271,160 

Other Postretirement Trusts
2020Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Total
 (In Thousands)
Equity securities:      
Common collective trust (c) $315,191 
Fixed income securities:      
U.S. Government securities46,498 (b)97,604 (a)144,102 
Corporate debt instruments 147,287 (a)147,287 
Registered investment companies16,965 (d) 16,965 
Other 60,219 (f)60,219 
Total investments$63,463  $305,110  $0 $683,764 
Other pending transactions     (21,931)
Plus:  Other postretirement assets included in the investments of the qualified pension trust     76,033 
Total fair value of other postretirement assets     $737,866 

186
2016 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Thousands)
Equity securities:        
Common collective trust (c)       
$368,704
Fixed income securities:        
U.S. Government securities 30,632
(b)43,097
(a)
 73,729
Corporate debt instruments 
 58,787
(a)
 58,787
Registered investment companies 3,123
(d)
 
 3,123
Other 
 45,389
(f)
 45,389
Total investments 
$33,755
 
$147,273
 
$—
 
$549,732
Other pending transactions       104
Plus:  Other postretirement assets included in the investments of the qualified pension trust       46,824
Total fair value of other postretirement assets       
$596,660

(a)Certain preferred stocks and certain fixed income debt securities (corporate, government, and securitized) are stated at fair value as determined by broker quotes.
(b)Common stocks, certain preferred stocks, and certain fixed income debt securities (government) are stated at fair value determined by quoted market prices.
(c)The common collective trusts hold investments in accordance with stated objectives.  The investment strategy of the trusts is to capture the growth potential of equity markets by replicating the performance of a specified index.  Net asset value per share of common collective trusts estimate fair value. Certain of these common collective trusts are not publicly quoted, and are valued by the fund administrators using net asset value as a practical expedient. Accordingly, these funds are not assigned a level in the fair value table.
(d)Registered investment companies are money market mutual funds with a stable net asset value of one dollar per share. Registered investment companies may hold investments in domestic and international bond markets or domestic equities and estimate fair value using net asset value per share.
(e)Certain of these registered investment companies are not publicly quoted, and are valued by the fund administrators using net asset value as a practical expedient. Accordingly, these funds are not assigned a level in the fair value table.
(f)The other remaining assets are U.S. municipal and foreign government bonds stated at fair value as determined by broker quotes.
(g)The unallocated insurance contract investments are recorded at contract value, which approximates fair value.  The contract value represents contributions made under the contract, plus interest, less funds used to pay benefits and contract expenses, and less distributions to the master trust.
(h)103-12 investment entities hold investments in accordance with stated objectives. The investment strategy of the investment entities is to capture the growth potential of international equity markets by replicating the performance of a specified index. 103-12 investment entities estimate fair value using net asset value as a practical expedient. Accordingly, these funds are not assigned a level in the fair value table.


182

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



2019Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Total
 (In Thousands)
Equity securities:      
Common collective trust (c) $289,398 
Fixed income securities:      
U.S. Government securities49,930 (b)89,297 (a)139,227 
Corporate debt instruments 130,333 (a)130,333 
Registered investment companies1,877 (d) 1,877 
Other 57,210 (f)57,210 
Total investments$51,807  $276,840  $0 $618,045 
Other pending transactions     1,645 
Plus:  Other postretirement assets included in the investments of the qualified pension trust     66,572 
Total fair value of other postretirement assets     $686,262 

(a)Certain preferred stocks and certain fixed income debt securities (corporate, government, and securitized) are stated at fair value as determined by broker quotes.
(b)Common stocks, certain preferred stocks, and certain fixed income debt securities (government) are stated at fair value determined by quoted market prices.
(c)The common collective trusts hold investments in accordance with stated objectives.  The investment strategy of the trusts is to capture the growth potential of equity markets by replicating the performance of a specified index.  Net asset value per share of common collective trusts estimate fair value. Certain of these common collective trusts are not publicly quoted and are valued by the fund administrators using net asset value as a practical expedient. Accordingly, these funds are not assigned a level in the fair value table, but are included in the total.
(d)Registered investment companies are money market mutual funds with a stable net asset value of one dollar per share. Registered investment companies may hold investments in domestic and international bond markets or domestic equities and estimate fair value using net asset value per share.
(e)Certain of these registered investment companies are not publicly quoted and are valued by the fund administrators using net asset value as a practical expedient. Accordingly, these funds are not assigned a level in the fair value table, but are included in the total.
(f)The other remaining assets are U.S. municipal and foreign government bonds stated at fair value as determined by broker quotes.
(g)The unallocated insurance contract investments are recorded at contract value, which approximates fair value.  The contract value represents contributions made under the contract, plus interest, less funds used to pay benefits and contract expenses, and less distributions to the master trust.


187

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Estimated Future Benefit Payments


Based upon the assumptions used to measure Entergy’s qualified pension and other postretirement benefit obligations at December 31, 2017,2020, and including pension and other postretirement benefits attributable to estimated future employee service, Entergy expects that benefits to be paid and the Medicare Part D subsidies to be received over the next ten years for Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries will be as follows:

 Estimated Future Benefits Payments  
 Qualified Pension Non-Qualified Pension Other Postretirement (before Medicare Subsidy) Estimated Future Medicare Subsidy Receipts
 (In Thousands)
Year(s)       
2018
$412,057
 
$26,375
 
$82,087
 
$745
2019
$435,880
 
$10,108
 
$86,685
 
$842
2020
$447,224
 
$13,364
 
$89,508
 
$956
2021
$462,624
 
$10,765
 
$92,087
 
$1,071
2022
$470,846
 
$17,425
 
$94,427
 
$1,195
2023 - 2027
$2,478,959
 
$72,181
 
$475,991
 
$8,109
 Estimated Future Benefits Payments 
 Qualified PensionNon-Qualified PensionOther Postretirement (before Medicare Subsidy)Estimated Future Medicare D Subsidy Receipts
 (In Thousands)
Year(s)    
2021$566,242 $22,851 $68,109 $123 
2022$568,058 $24,193 $67,904 $82 
2023$569,348 $23,906 $68,149 $93 
2024$576,365 $17,183 $67,569 $101 
2025$552,303 $25,477 $66,414 $112 
2026 - 2030$2,641,864 $56,584 $314,972 $703 


Based upon the same assumptions, Entergy expects that benefits to be paid and the Medicare Part D subsidies to be received over the next ten years for the Registrant Subsidiaries for their employees will be as follows:
Estimated Future Qualified Pension Benefits PaymentsEntergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Year(s)      
2021$115,340 $130,058 $38,131 $15,011 $32,935 $29,202 
2022$114,260 $130,019 $38,104 $15,202 $32,859 $28,854 
2023$111,759 $128,199 $37,159 $15,030 $31,439 $28,833 
2024$110,128 $126,927 $35,571 $14,437 $29,541 $28,641 
2025$108,314 $124,911 $34,377 $14,052 $27,781 $27,378 
2026 - 2030$513,207 $575,141 $155,722 $63,426 $123,688 $132,163 
Estimated Future Qualified Pension Benefits Payments Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Year(s)            
2018 
$87,295
 
$93,155
 
$25,833
 
$11,484
 
$25,333
 
$17,780
2019 
$87,832
 
$96,060
 
$25,977
 
$12,202
 
$25,656
 
$18,566
2020 
$88,905
 
$100,179
 
$27,198
 
$12,463
 
$26,399
 
$19,398
2021 
$90,278
 
$103,810
 
$27,508
 
$13,087
 
$26,756
 
$20,279
2022 
$92,061
 
$107,609
 
$27,389
 
$13,207
 
$26,310
 
$21,714
2023 - 2027 
$479,160
 
$571,926
 
$141,912
 
$69,595
 
$130,905
 
$117,835

Estimated Future Non-Qualified Pension Benefits PaymentsEntergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
 (In Thousands)
Year(s)     
2021$218 $193 $181 $17 $633 
2022$424 $211 $411 $17 $871 
2023$328 $217 $377 $21 $1,004 
2024$285 $196 $454 $19 $851 
2025$580 $209 $439 $19 $762 
2026 - 2030$976 $718 $2,146 $111 $3,250 

188
Estimated Future Non-Qualified Pension Benefits Payments Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas
  (In Thousands)
Year(s)          
2018 
$376
 
$231
 
$135
 
$21
 
$788
2019 
$300
 
$219
 
$137
 
$55
 
$764
2020 
$355
 
$208
 
$290
 
$36
 
$895
2021 
$310
 
$196
 
$192
 
$39
 
$723
2022 
$506
 
$186
 
$201
 
$41
 
$662
2023 - 2027 
$2,196
 
$749
 
$1,462
 
$459
 
$3,762


183

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Estimated Future Other Postretirement Benefits Payments (before Medicare Part D Subsidy)Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Year(s)      
2021$12,693 $15,600 $3,386 $2,412 $5,322 $2,739 
2022$12,542 $15,502 $3,498 $2,322 $4,840 $2,734 
2023$12,329 $15,397 $3,541 $2,238 $4,770 $2,676 
2024$12,156 $15,034 $3,574 $2,151 $4,597 $2,579 
2025$11,869 $14,825 $3,614 $2,070 $4,486 $2,518 
2026 - 2030$56,603 $69,424 $17,668 $8,853 $20,622 $11,749 

Estimated Future Other Postretirement Benefits Payments (before Medicare Part D Subsidy) Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Year(s)            
2018 
$15,282
 
$18,962
 
$4,677
 
$3,954
 
$6,485
 
$3,246
2019 
$15,398
 
$19,767
 
$4,818
 
$4,000
 
$6,842
 
$3,363
2020 
$15,349
 
$20,287
 
$5,043
 
$3,952
 
$7,101
 
$3,381
2021 
$15,483
 
$20,756
 
$5,218
 
$3,899
 
$7,369
 
$3,537
2022 
$15,419
 
$21,250
 
$5,331
 
$3,800
 
$7,519
 
$3,595
2023 - 2027 
$75,293
 
$108,290
 
$26,723
 
$17,698
 
$36,897
 
$17,677
Estimated Future Medicare Part D SubsidyEntergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Year(s)      
2021$40 $20 $15 $0 $13 $5 
2022$39 $6 $15 $0 $4 $1 
2023$42 $6 $17 $0 $5 $2 
2024$45 $8 $17 $0 $5 $2 
2025$49 $8 $19 $0 $6 $1 
2026 - 2030$289 $58 $112 $0 $43 $12 

Estimated Future Medicare Part D Subsidy Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
  (In Thousands)
Year(s)            
2018 
$164
 
$168
 
$58
 
$38
 
$64
 
$23
2019 
$185
 
$187
 
$65
 
$39
 
$69
 
$27
2020 
$209
 
$210
 
$70
 
$41
 
$75
 
$33
2021 
$230
 
$234
 
$76
 
$43
 
$81
 
$38
2022 
$254
 
$257
 
$82
 
$46
 
$88
 
$46
2023 - 2027 
$1,646
 
$1,720
 
$514
 
$259
 
$552
 
$346


Contributions


Entergy currently expects to contribute approximately $352.1$356 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $52.3$39.9 million to other postretirement plans in 2018.2021.  The expected 20182021 pension and other postretirement plan contributions of the Registrant Subsidiaries for their employees are shown below.  The 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021.


The Registrant Subsidiaries expect to contribute approximately the following to the qualified pension and other postretirement plans for their employees in 2018:2021:
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
Pension Contributions$66,649 $59,882 $13,715 $5,395 $6,955 $18,663 
Other Postretirement Contributions$517 $15,600 $130 $175 $66 $22 

189
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
 (In Thousands)
Pension Contributions
$64,062
 
$71,917
 
$14,933
 
$7,250
 
$10,883
 
$13,786
Other Postretirement Contributions
$472
 
$18,962
 
$110
 
$3,669
 
$3,231
 
$16


184

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






Actuarial Assumptions


The significant actuarial assumptions used in determining the pension PBO and the other postretirement benefit APBO as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 were as follows:
 20202019
Weighted-average discount rate:  
Qualified pension
2.60% - 2.83%
Blended 2.77%
3.26% - 3.43% Blended 3.39%
Other postretirement2.62%3.26%
Non-qualified pension1.61%2.72%
Weighted-average rate of increase in future compensation levels3.98% - 4.40%3.98% - 4.40%
Interest crediting rate2.60%2.60%
Assumed health care trend rate:
Pre-655.87%6.13%
Post-656.31%6.25%
Ultimate rate4.75%4.75%
Year ultimate rate is reached and beyond:
    Pre-6520302027
    Post-6520282027
 2017 2016
Weighted-average discount rate:   
Qualified pension3.70% - 3.82% Blended 3.78% 4.30% - 4.49% Blended 4.39%
Other postretirement3.72% 4.30%
Non-qualified pension3.34% 3.63%
Weighted-average rate of increase in future compensation levels3.98% 3.98%
Assumed health care trend rate:   
Pre-656.95% 6.55%
Post-657.25% 7.25%
Ultimate rate4.75% 4.75%
Year ultimate rate is reached and beyond:
  
    Pre-652027 2026
    Post-652027 2026


The significant actuarial assumptions used in determining the net periodic pension and other postretirement benefit costs for 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 were as follows:
2017 2016 2015 202020192018
Weighted-average discount rate:     Weighted-average discount rate:   
Qualified pension: Qualified pension:
Service cost4.75% 5.00% 4.27% Service cost3.42%4.57%3.89%
Interest cost3.73% 3.90% 4.27% Interest cost2.99%4.15%3.44%
Other postretirement: Other postretirement:
Service cost4.60% 4.92% 4.23% Service cost3.27%4.62%3.88%
Interest cost3.61% 3.78% 4.23% Interest cost2.41%4.01%3.33%
Non-qualified pension: Non-qualified pension:
Service cost3.65% 3.65% 3.61% Service cost2.71%3.94%3.35%
Interest cost3.10% 3.10% 3.61% Interest cost2.25%3.46%2.76%
Weighted-average rate of increase in future compensation levels3.98% 4.23% 4.23%Weighted-average rate of increase in future compensation levels3.98% - 4.40%3.98%3.98%
Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets:     Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets:   
Pension assets7.50% 7.75% 8.25%Pension assets7.00%7.25%7.50%
Other postretirement non-taxable assets6.50% - 7.50% 7.75% 8.05%Other postretirement non-taxable assets6.25% - 7.00%6.5%-7.25%6.50% - 7.50%
Other postretirement taxable assets5.75% 6.00% 6.25%Other postretirement taxable assets5.25%5.50%5.50%
Assumed health care trend rate: Assumed health care trend rate:
Pre-656.55% 6.75% 7.10%Pre-656.13%6.59%6.95%
Post-657.25% 7.55% 7.70%Post-656.25%7.15%7.25%
Ultimate rate4.75% 4.75% 4.75%Ultimate rate4.75%4.75%4.75%
Year ultimate rate is reached and beyond:
 
 
Year ultimate rate is reached and beyond:
Pre-652026 2024 2023 Pre-65202720272027
Post-652026 2024 2023 Post-65202720262027
    

185190

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



In 2016, Entergy refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of qualified pension, other postretirement, and non-qualified pension costs. Under the refined approach, instead of using the weighted-average obligation discount rates at the beginning of the year, 2016 service cost and interest costs’ expected cash flows were discounted by the applicable spot rates. The refinement in approach was a change in accounting estimate and, accordingly, the effect was reflected prospectively. The measurement of the benefit obligation was not affected.

With respect to the mortality assumptions, Entergy used the RP-2014Pri-2012 Employee and Healthy Annuitant Tables (adjusted to base year 2006) with a fully generational MP-2017MP-2020 projection scale, in determining its December 31, 20172020 pension plans’ PBOs and the Pri.H 2012 (headcount weighted) Employee and Healthy Annuitant Tables with a fully generational MP-2020 projection scale, in determining its December 31, 2020 other postretirement benefit APBO. Entergy used the RP-2014Pri-2012 Employee and Healthy Annuitant Tables (adjusted to base year 2006) with a fully generational MP-2016MP-2019 projection scale, in determining its December 31, 20162019 pension plans’ PBOs and the Pri.H 2012 (headcount weighted) Employee and Healthy Annuitant Tables with a fully generational MP-2019 projection scale, in determining its December 31, 2019 other postretirement benefit APBO. 

Entergy’s health care cost trend is affected by both medical cost inflation, and with respect to capped costs, the effects of general inflation. A one percentage point change in Entergy’s assumed health care cost trend rate for 2017 would have the following effects:
  1 Percentage Point Increase 1 Percentage Point Decrease
2017 Impact on the APBO Impact on the sum of service costs and interest cost Impact on the APBO Impact on the sum of service costs and interest cost
  
Increase /(Decrease)
(In Thousands)
Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries 
$166,814
 
$10,221
 
($139,648) 
($8,385)

The Registrant Subsidiaries’ health care cost trend is affected by both medical cost inflation, and with respect to capped costs, the effects of general inflation. A one percentage point change in the assumed health care cost trend rate for 2017 would have the following effects for the Registrant Subsidiaries for their employees:
  1 Percentage Point Increase 1 Percentage Point Decrease
2017 Impact on the APBO Impact on the sum of service costs and interest cost Impact on the APBO Impact on the sum of service costs and interest cost
  
Increase/(Decrease)
(In Thousands)
Entergy Arkansas 
$23,612
 
$1,369
 
($19,810) 
($1,133)
Entergy Louisiana 
$37,240
 
$2,333
 
($31,063) 
($1,909)
Entergy Mississippi 
$8,666
 
$448
 
($7,276) 
($370)
Entergy New Orleans 
$4,585
 
$251
 
($3,895) 
($208)
Entergy Texas 
$12,444
 
$751
 
($10,452) 
($618)
System Energy 
$7,334
 
$475
 
($6,074) 
($387)


Defined Contribution Plans


Entergy sponsors the Savings Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (System Savings Plan).  The System Savings Plan is a defined contribution plan covering eligible employees of Entergy and certain of its subsidiaries. The participating Entergy subsidiary makes matching contributions to the System Savings Plan for all eligible participating employees in an amount equal to either 70% or 100% of the participants’ basic contributions, up to 6% of their eligible earnings per pay period.  The matching contribution is allocated to investments as directed by the employee.


186

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Entergy also sponsors the Savings Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries IV (established in March 2002), the Savings Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries VI (established in April 2007), and the Savings Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries VII (established in April 2007) to which matching contributions are also made.  The plans are defined contribution plans that cover eligible employees, as defined by each plan, of Entergy and certain of its subsidiaries.


Entergy also sponsors the Savings Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries VIII (established January 2021) and the Savings Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries IX (established January 2021) to which company contributions are made. The participating Entergy subsidiary makes matching contributions to these defined contribution plans for all eligible participating employees in an amount equal to 100% of the participants’ basic contributions, up to 5% of their eligible earnings per pay period. Eligible participants may also receive a discretionary annual company contribution up to 4% of the participant’s eligible earnings (subject to vesting).

Entergy’s subsidiaries’ contributions to defined contribution plans collectively were $49.1$63.1 million in 2017, $472020, $57.6 million in 2016,2019, and $44.4$54.3 million in 2015.2018.  The majority of the contributions were to the System Savings Plan.


The Registrant Subsidiaries’ 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 contributions to defined contribution plans for their employees were as follows:
 
 
Year
Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
 (In Thousands)
2020$4,515 $6,518 $2,863 $1,115 $2,596 
2019$4,111 $5,641 $2,424 $882 $2,136 
2018$3,985 $5,450 $2,307 $795 $1,992 
 
 
Year
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas
  (In Thousands)
2017 
$3,741
 
$5,079
 
$2,133
 
$731
 
$1,865
2016 
$3,528
 
$4,746
 
$1,997
 
$708
 
$1,778
2015 
$3,242
 
$4,324
 
$1,920
 
$721
 
$1,620




NOTE 12.    STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION (Entergy Corporation)


Entergy grants stock options, restricted stock, performance units, and restricted stock unit awardsunits to key employees of the Entergy subsidiaries under its Equity Ownership Plansequity plans which are shareholder-approved stock-based compensation plans.  Effective May 8, 2015,3, 2019, Entergy’s shareholders approved the 2015 Equity Ownership2019 Omnibus Incentive Plan
191

Entergy Corporation and Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan (2015Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




(2019 Plan).  The maximum number of common shares that can be issued from the 20152019 Plan for stock-based awards is 6,900,000 with no more than 1,500,0007,300,000 all of which are available for incentive stock option grants.  The 20152019 Plan only applies to awards granted on or after May 8, 20153, 2019 and awards will expire ten years from the date of grant. As of December 31, 2017,2020, there were 3,498,7886,108,451 authorized shares remaining for stock-based awards, including 1,500,000 for incentive stock option grants.awards.


Stock Options


Stock options are granted at exercise prices that equal the closing market price of Entergy Corporation common stock on the date of grant.  Generally, stock options granted will become exercisable in equal amounts on each of the first three anniversaries of the date of grant.  Unless they are forfeited previously under the terms of the grant, options expire 10 years after the date of the grant if they are not exercised.


The following table includes financial information for stock options for each of the years presented:
 202020192018
 (In Millions)
Compensation expense included in Entergy’s consolidated net income$3.9$3.8$4.3
Tax benefit recognized in Entergy’s consolidated net income$1.0$1.0$1.1
Compensation cost capitalized as part of fixed assets and inventory$1.5$1.4$0.7
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Millions)
Compensation expense included in Entergy’s consolidated net income$4.4 $4.4 $4.3
Tax benefit recognized in Entergy’s consolidated net income$1.7 $1.7 $1.6
Compensation cost capitalized as part of fixed assets and inventory$0.7 $0.7 $0.7


187

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Entergy determines the fair value of the stock option grants by considering factors such as lack of marketability, stock retention requirements, and regulatory restrictions on exercisability in accordance with accounting standards.  The stock option weighted-average assumptions used in determining the fair values are as follows:
 202020192018
Stock price volatility17.16%17.23%17.44%
Expected term in years7.047.327.33
Risk-free interest rate1.49%2.50%2.54%
Dividend yield4.00%4.50%4.75%
Dividend payment per share$3.74$3.66$3.58
 2017 2016 2015
Stock price volatility18.39% 20.38% 23.62%
Expected term in years7.35 7.25 7.06
Risk-free interest rate2.31% 1.77% 1.59%
Dividend yield4.75% 4.50% 4.50%
Dividend payment per share$3.50 $3.42 $3.34


Stock price volatility is calculated based upon the daily public stock price volatility of Entergy Corporation common stock over a period equal to the expected term of the award.  The expected term of the options is based upon historical option exercises and the weighted average life of options when exercised and the estimated weighted average life of all vested but unexercised options.  In 2008, Entergy implemented stock ownership guidelines for its senior executive officers.  These guidelines require an executive officer to own shares of Entergy Corporation common stock equal to a specified multiple of his or her salary.  Until an executive officer achieves this ownership position the executive officer is required to retain 75% of the net-of-tax net profit upon exercise of the option to be held in Entergy Corporation common stock.  The reduction in fair value of the stock options due to this restriction is based upon an estimate of the call option value of the reinvested gain discounted to present value over the applicable reinvestment period. 

192

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


A summary of stock option activity for the year ended December 31, 20172020 and changes during the year are presented below:
 
 
 
Number
of Options
Weighted-
Average
Exercise
Price
 
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
Weighted-
Average
Contractual Life
Options outstanding as of January 1, 20202,448,913 $78.48  
Options granted530,716 $131.72  
Options exercised(544,082)$79.27  
Options forfeited/expired(36,168)$108.69  
Options outstanding as of December 31, 20202,399,379 $89.63$40,842,1526.72 years
Options exercisable as of December 31, 20201,264,641 $74.55$31,979,3705.26 years
Weighted-average grant-date fair value of options granted during 2020$11.45   
 
 
 
Number
of Options
 
Weighted-
Average
Exercise
Price
 
 
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
 
Weighted-
Average
Contractual Life
Options outstanding as of January 1, 20177,137,210
 $84.91    
Options granted791,900
 $70.53    
Options exercised(1,109,306) $72.74    
Options forfeited/expired(1,654,950) $91.36    
Options outstanding as of December 31, 20175,164,854
 $83.26 $— 4.18 years
Options exercisable as of December 31, 20174,027,902
 $86.37 $— 2.94 years
Weighted-average grant-date fair value of options granted during 2017$6.54      


The weighted-average grant-date fair value of options granted during the year was $7.40$8.32 for 20162019 and $11.41$6.99 for 2015.2018.  The total intrinsic value of stock options exercised was $11$26 million during 2017, $52020, $29 million during 2016,2019, and $5$19 million during 2015.2018.  The intrinsic value, which has no effect on net income, of the outstanding stock options exercised is calculated by the positive difference between the weighted average exercise price of the stock options granted and Entergy Corporation’s common stock price as of December 31, 2017.  Because Entergy’s year-end common stock price was less than the weighted average exercise price, the2020.  The aggregate intrinsic value of the stock options outstanding as of December 31, 20172020 was zero. The intrinsic value of “in the money” stock$40.8 million. Stock options is $32 millionoutstanding as of December 31, 2017.2020 includes 512,316 out of the money options with an intrinsic value of zero. Entergy recognizes compensation cost over the vesting period of the options based on their grant-date fair value.  The total fair value of options that vested was approximately $6 million during 2017, $5 million during 2016,2020, $5 million during 2019, and $4 million during 2015.2018. Cash received from option exercises was $81$43 million for the year ended December 31, 2017.2020. The tax benefits realized from options exercised was $4$7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017.2020.



188
193

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






The following table summarizes information about stock options outstanding as of December 31, 2017:2020:
 Options OutstandingOptions Exercisable
Range of Exercise PriceAs of December 31, 2020Weighted-Average Remaining Contractual Life-Yrs.Weighted Average Exercise PriceNumber Exercisable as of December 31, 2020Weighted Average Exercise Price
$51  -$64.99240,200 2.72$63.69240,200 $63.69
$65  -$78.99960,110 6.09$73.86759,031 $72.74
$79  -$91.99686,753 7.24$89.34265,410 $89.57
$92  -$131.72512,316 9.08$131.72$0.00
$51  -$131.722,399,379 6.72$89.631,264,641 $74.55
   Options Outstanding Options Exercisable
Range of As of Weighted-Average Remaining Contractual Life-Yrs. Weighted Average Exercise Price Number Exercisable as of Weighted Average Exercise Price
Exercise Prices 12/31/2017   12/31/2017 

$51 -$64.99 502,709
 5.73 $63.68 502,709
 $63.68

$65 -$78.99 2,790,045
 5.56 $72.94 1,751,402
 $74.36

$79 -$91.99 441,000
 7.08 $89.90 342,691
 $89.90

$92 -$108.20 1,431,100
 0.06 $108.20 1,431,100
 $108.20

$51 -$108.20 5,164,854
 4.18 $83.26 4,027,902
 $86.37


Stock-based compensation cost related to non-vested stock options outstanding as of December 31, 20172020 not yet recognized is approximately $6 million and is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.701.72 years.


Restricted Stock Awards


Entergy grants restricted stock awards earned under its stock benefit plans in the form of stock units. One-third of the restricted stock awards will vest upon each anniversary of the grant date and are expensed ratably over the three yearthree-year vesting period.  Shares of restricted stock have the same dividend and voting rights as other common stock and are considered issued and outstanding shares of Entergy upon vesting. In January 20172020 the Board approved and Entergy granted 379,850313,805 restricted stock awards under the 2015 Equity Ownership and Long-term Cash Incentive2019 Plan.  The restricted stock awards were made effective as ofon January 26, 201730, 2020 and were valued at $70.53$131.72 per share, which was the closing price of Entergy Corporation’s common stock on that date.  


The following table includes information about the restricted stock awards outstanding as of December 31, 2017:2020:
 SharesWeighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value Per Share
Outstanding shares at January 1, 2020692,134 $82.56
Granted336,363 $130.11
Vested(345,271)$79.41
Forfeited(34,728)$101.32
Outstanding shares at December 31, 2020648,498 $107.89
 Shares Weighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value Per Share
Outstanding shares at January 1, 2017683,474
 $74.80
Granted410,787
 $70.71
Vested(330,816) $73.61
Forfeited(53,834) $75.63
Outstanding shares at December 31, 2017709,611
 $72.92


The following table includes financial information for restricted stock for each of the years presented:
 202020192018
 (In Millions)
Compensation expense included in Entergy’s consolidated net income$23.1$20.2$19.8
Tax benefit recognized in Entergy’s consolidated net income$5.9$5.1$5.1
Compensation cost capitalized as part of fixed assets and inventory$8.5$7.1$5.7
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Millions)
Compensation expense included in Entergy’s consolidated net income$19.7 $19.8 $19.5
Tax benefit recognized in Entergy’s consolidated net income$7.6 $7.6 $7.5
Compensation cost capitalized as part of fixed assets and inventory$5.2 $4.5 $3.9


The total fair value of the restricted stock awards granted was $29$44 million, $34 million, and $28 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015.2018, respectively.



189
194

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



The total fair value of the restricted stock awards vested was $24$27 million, $23$25 million, and $29$25 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, respectively.


Long-Term Performance Unit Program


Entergy grants long-term incentive awards earned under its stock benefit plans in the form of performance units, which represents the value of, and are settled with, one share of Entergy Corporation common stock at the end of the three-year performance period, plus dividends accrued during the performance period.period on the number of performance units earned. The Long-Term Performance Unit Program specifies a minimum, target, and maximum achievement level, the achievement of which will determine the number of performance units that may be earned. Entergy measures performance by assessing Entergy’s total shareholder return relative to the total shareholder return of the companies in the Philadelphia Utility Index. There is no payout forFor the 2020-2021 performance that falls within the lowest quartile ofperiod, performance of the peer companies.  For top quartile performance,will be measured based 80 percent on relative total shareholder return and 20 percent on a maximum payout of 200% of target is earned.cumulative adjusted earnings per share metric.


The costs of incentive awards are charged to income over the 3-year period.  In January 20172020 the Board approved and Entergy granted 220,450134,853 performance units under the 2015 Equity Ownership and Long-Term Cash Incentive2019 Plan.  The performance units were made effective as ofgranted on January 26, 2017,30, 2020, and eighty percent were valued at $71.40$169.74 per share. Sharesshare based on various factors, primarily market conditions; and twenty percent were valued at $131.72 per share, the closing price of the performanceEntergy Corporation’s common stock on that date. Performance units have the same dividend and voting rights as other common stock, are considered issued and outstanding shares of Entergy upon vesting, and are expensed ratably over the 3-year vesting period.period, and compensation cost for the portion of the award based on cumulative adjusted earnings per share will be adjusted based on the number of units that ultimately vest.


The following table includes information about the long-term performance units outstanding at the target level as of December 31, 2017:2020:
 SharesWeighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value Per Share
Outstanding shares at January 1, 2020551,933 $84.01
Granted376,557 $105.90
Vested(423,225)$71.40
Forfeited(29,500)$111.86
Outstanding shares at December 31, 2020475,765 $110.82
 Shares Weighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value Per Share
Outstanding shares at January 1, 2017571,551
 $82.02
Granted258,808
 $72.28
Vested(86,964) $67.16
Forfeited(209,244) $72.12
Outstanding shares at December 31, 2017534,151
 $83.60


The following table includes financial information for the long-term performance units for each of the years presented:
 202020192018
 (In Millions)
Compensation expense included in Entergy’s consolidated net income$12.6$11.1 $11.5 
Tax benefit recognized in Entergy’s consolidated net income$3.2$2.8 $2.9 
Compensation cost capitalized as part of fixed assets and inventory$4.9$4.0 $3.3 
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Millions)
Compensation expense included in Entergy’s consolidated net income$10.8 
$12.3
 
$11.8
Tax benefit recognized in Entergy’s consolidated net income$4.2 
$4.8
 
$4.5
Compensation cost capitalized as part of fixed assets and inventory$3.0 
$2.9
 
$2.3

The total fair value of the long-term performance units granted was $19$40 million, $21$23 million, and $16 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, respectively.


In January 2017,2020, Entergy issued 86,964423,184 shares of Entergy Corporation common stock at a share price of $71.89$126.31 for awards earned and dividends accrued under the 2014-20162017-2019 Long-Term Performance Unit Program. In January 2016,2019, Entergy issued 54,103226,208 shares of Entergy Corporation common stock at a share price of $68.09$86.03 for awards earned and dividends accrued under the 2013-20152016-2018 Long-Term Performance Unit Program. In January 2015,
195

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




2018, Entergy issued 105,50350,812 shares of Entergy Corporation common stock at a share price of $88.67$78.51 for awards earned and dividends accrued under the 2012-20142015-2017 Long-Term Performance Unit Program.

190

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Restricted Stock Unit Awards


Entergy grants restricted stock unit awards earned under its stock benefit plans in the form of stock units that are subject to time-based restrictions.  The restricted stock units may be settled in shares of Entergy Corporation common stock or the cash value of shares of Entergy Corporation common stock at the time of vesting.  The costs of restricted stock unit awards are charged to income over the restricted period, which varies from grant to grant.  The average vesting period for restricted stock unit awards granted is 4133 months.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, there were 201,57086,175 unvested restricted stock units that are expected to vest over an average period of 2416 months.


The following table includes information about the restricted stock unit awards outstanding as of December 31, 2017:2020:
 SharesWeighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value Per Share
Outstanding shares at January 1, 2020130,463 $82.72
Granted18,100 $114.30
Vested(55,888)$77.04
Forfeited(6,500)$84.32
Outstanding shares at December 31, 202086,175 $92.92
 Shares Weighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value Per Share
Outstanding shares at January 1, 2017181,650
 $74.94
Granted40,170
 $79.10
Vested(5,800) $73.22
Forfeited(14,450) $79.69
Outstanding shares at December 31, 2017201,570
 $75.48


The following table includes financial information for restricted stock unit awards for each of the years presented:
 202020192018
 (In Millions)
Compensation expense included in Entergy’s consolidated net income$2.0$2.2$2.9
Tax benefit recognized in Entergy’s consolidated net income$0.5$0.6$0.7
Compensation cost capitalized as part of fixed assets and inventory$0.9$0.9$0.7
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Millions)
Compensation expense included in Entergy’s consolidated net income$2.5 $2.2 $0.9
Tax benefit recognized in Entergy’s consolidated net income$1.0 $0.8 $0.4
Compensation cost capitalized as part of fixed assets and inventory$0.6 $0.4 $0.3


The total fair value of the restricted stock unit awards granted was $2 million, $3 million, $5 million, and $4$2 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, respectively.


The total fair value of the restricted stock unit awards vested was $0.4$4 million, $2$6 million, and $1$3.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, respectively.




NOTE 13. BUSINESS SEGMENT INFORMATION  (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Entergy’s reportable segments as of December 31, 20172020 are Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  Utility includes the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric power in portions of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, and natural gas utility service in portions of Louisiana.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants located in the northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers.  “All Other” includes the parent company, Entergy Corporation, and other business activity.


191196

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Entergy’s segment financial information iswas as follows:
2020
 
 
Utility
Entergy Wholesale Commodities
 
 
All Other
 
 
Eliminations
 
 
Consolidated
 (In Thousands)
Operating revenues$9,170,714 $942,869 $78 ($25)$10,113,636 
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges$0 $26,623 $0 $0 $26,623 
Depreciation, amortization, & decommissioning$1,685,138 $306,974 $2,835 $0 $1,994,947 
Interest and investment income$299,004 $234,194 $19,563 ($159,943)$392,818 
Interest expense$648,851 $22,432 $146,730 ($32,350)$785,663 
Income taxes($282,311)$104,937 $55,868 $0 ($121,506)
Consolidated net income (loss)$1,816,354 ($62,763)($219,344)($127,594)$1,406,653 
Total assets$55,940,153 $3,800,378 $552,632 ($2,053,951)$58,239,212 
Cash paid for long-lived asset additions$5,102,322 $54,455 $84 $0 $5,156,861 
2017 
 
 
Utility
 Entergy Wholesale Commodities* 
 
 
All Other
 
 
 
Eliminations
 
 
 
Consolidated
  (In Thousands)
Operating revenues 
$9,417,866
 
$1,656,730
 
$—
 
($115) 
$11,074,481
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges 
$—
 
$538,372
 
$—
 
$—
 
$538,372
Depreciation, amortization, & decommissioning 
$1,345,906
 
$448,079
 
$1,678
 
$—
 
$1,795,663
Interest and investment income 
$218,317
 
$224,121
 
$21,669
 
($175,910) 
$288,197
Interest expense 
$547,301
 
$23,714
 
$139,619
 
($48,291) 
$662,343
Income taxes 
$794,616
 
($146,480) 
($105,566) 
$—
 
$542,570
Consolidated net income (loss) 
$773,148
 
($172,335) 
($47,840) 
($127,620) 
$425,353
Total assets 
$42,978,669
 
$5,638,009
 
$1,011,612
 
($2,921,141) 
$46,707,149
Investment in affiliates - at equity 
$198
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$198
Cash paid for long-lived asset additions 
$3,680,513
 
$320,667
 
$438
 
$—
 
$4,001,618


2019
 
 
Utility
Entergy Wholesale Commodities
 
 
All Other
 
 
Eliminations
 
 
Consolidated
 (In Thousands)
Operating revenues$9,583,985 $1,294,719 $21 ($52)$10,878,673 
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges$0 $290,027 $0 $0 $290,027 
Depreciation, amortization, & decommissioning$1,493,167 $384,707 $2,944 $0 $1,880,818 
Interest and investment income$289,570 $414,636 $26,295 ($182,589)$547,912 
Interest expense$589,395 $29,450 $178,575 ($54,995)$742,425 
Income taxes$19,634 ($161,295)($28,164)$0 ($169,825)
Consolidated net income (loss)$1,425,643 $148,870 ($188,675)($127,594)$1,258,244 
Total assets$49,557,664 $4,154,961 $514,020 ($2,502,733)$51,723,912 
Cash paid for long-lived asset additions$4,527,045 $104,300 $160 $0 $4,631,505 

197
2016 
 
 
Utility
 Entergy Wholesale Commodities* 
 
 
All Other
 
 
 
Eliminations
 
 
 
Consolidated
  (In Thousands)
Operating revenues 
$8,996,106
 
$1,849,638
 
$—
 
($99) 
$10,845,645
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges 
$—
 
$2,835,637
 
$—
 
$—
 
$2,835,637
Depreciation, amortization, & decommissioning 
$1,298,043
 
$374,922
 
$1,647
 
$—
 
$1,674,612
Interest and investment income 
$189,994
 
$108,466
 
$27,385
 
($180,718) 
$145,127
Interest expense 
$557,546
 
$22,858
 
$139,090
 
($53,124) 
$666,370
Income taxes 
$424,388
 
($1,192,263) 
($49,384) 
$—
 
($817,259)
Consolidated net income (loss) 
$1,151,133
 
($1,493,124) 
($94,917) 
($127,595) 
($564,503)
Total assets 
$41,098,751
 
$6,696,038
 
$1,283,816
 
($3,174,171) 
$45,904,434
Investment in affiliates - at equity 
$198
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
 
$198
Cash paid for long-lived asset additions 
$3,754,225
 
$289,639
 
$393
 
$—
 
$4,044,257


192

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






2018
 
 
Utility
Entergy Wholesale Commodities
 
 
All Other
 
 
Eliminations
 
 
Consolidated
 (In Thousands)
Operating revenues$9,540,670 $1,468,905 $0 ($123)$11,009,452 
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges$0 $532,321 $0 $0 $532,321 
Depreciation, amortization, & decommissioning$1,367,944 $388,732 $1,274 $0 $1,757,950 
Interest and investment income$203,936 $14,543 $31,602 ($186,217)$63,864 
Interest expense$552,919 $33,694 $179,358 ($58,623)$707,348 
Income taxes($732,548)($269,025)($35,253)$0 ($1,036,826)
Consolidated net income (loss)$1,495,061 ($340,641)($164,271)($127,594)$862,555 
Total assets$44,777,167 $5,459,275 $733,366 ($2,694,742)$48,275,066 
Investment in affiliates - at equity$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
Cash paid for long-lived asset additions$3,987,424 $283,707 $86 $0 $4,271,217 

2015 
 
 
Utility
 Entergy Wholesale Commodities* 
 
 
All Other
 
 
 
Eliminations
 
 
 
Consolidated
  (In Thousands)
Operating revenues 
$9,451,486
 
$2,061,827
 
$—
 
($62) 
$11,513,251
Asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges 
$68,672
 
$2,036,234
 
$—
 
$—
 
$2,104,906
Depreciation, amortization, & decommissioning 
$1,238,832
 
$376,560
 
$2,156
 
$—
 
$1,617,548
Interest and investment income 
$191,546
 
$148,654
 
$34,303
 
($187,441) 
$187,062
Interest expense 
$543,132
 
$26,788
 
$129,750
 
($56,201) 
$643,469
Income taxes 
$16,761
 
($610,339) 
($49,349) 
$—
 
($642,927)
Consolidated net income (loss) 
$1,114,516
 
($1,065,657) 
($74,353) 
($131,240) 
($156,734)
Total assets 
$38,356,906
 
$8,210,183
 
($461,505) 
($1,457,903) 
$44,647,681
Investment in affiliates - at equity 
$199
 
$4,142
 
$—
 
$—
 
$4,341
Cash paid for long-lived asset additions 
$2,495,194
 
$569,824
 
$236
 
$—
 
$3,065,254

Businesses marked with * areThe Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is sometimes referred to as the “competitive businesses.”  Eliminations are primarily intersegment activity.  Almost all of Entergy’s goodwill is related to the Utility segment.


On December 29, 2014,In January 2019, Entergy sold the Vermont Yankee plant, ceased power production and entered its decommissioning phase.which it had previously shut down, to NorthStar. In December 2015, Rhode Island State Energy Center, a natural gas-fired combined cycle generating plant, was sold. In October 2015 management announced the intention to shutdown the FitzPatrick plant in 2017 andAugust 2019, Entergy sold the Pilgrim plant, in 2019, earlier thanwhich it had previously expected. In 2016 management announced the planned sale of Vermont Yankee in 2018, the planned sale of FitzPatrick in 2017, and the planned amendment of the Consumers Energy PPA to terminate early, in May 2018, and the subsequent plan to shut down, the Palisades plantto Holtec. Indian Point 2 was shut down in 2018, earlier than expected. In January 2017 managementApril 2020, and Entergy has also announced a settlement with New York Stateplans to shut down Indian Point 2 in 2020 and Indian Point 3 in April 2021 both earlier than expected. In March 2017 the FitzPatrick plant was soldand Palisades in May 2022, and has purchase and sale agreements with Holtec for each of them expected to Exelon. In September 2017 management announced the termination of the PPA amendment agreement with Consumers Energy and the revised plan to continue to operate Palisades under the current PPA and toclose after they are shut down Palisades permanently on May 31, 2022.

down. Management expects these transactions to result in the cessation of merchant power generation at all Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants owned and operated by Entergy by 2022. Entergy will continue to have the obligation to decommission the nuclear plants owned by Entergy.pending their sales to third parties.

TheseThe decisions to shut down these plants and the related transactions resulted in asset impairments; employee retention and severance expenses and other benefits-related costs; and contracted economic development contributions. The employee retention and severance expenses and other benefits-related costs and contracted economic development contributions are included in "Other operation and maintenance" in the consolidated statement of operations.income statements.



193
198

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Total restructuring charges in 20172020, 2019, and 2018 were comprised of the following:

Employee retention and severance expenses and other benefits-related costsContracted economic development costsTotal
 
Employee retention and severance expenses and other benefits-related costs

 Contracted economic development costs Total (In Millions)
Balance as of December 31, 2017Balance as of December 31, 2017$83 $14 $97 
Restructuring costs accruedRestructuring costs accrued139 139 
 (In Millions)
Balance as of January 1, 2017 
$70
 
$21
 
$91
Cash paid outCash paid out43 43 
Balance as of December 31, 2018Balance as of December 31, 2018$179 $14 $193 
Restructuring costs accrued 113
 
 113
Restructuring costs accrued91 91 
Non-cash portion 
 (7) (7)
Cash paid out 100
 
 100
Cash paid out141 141 
Balance as of December 31, 2017 
$83
 
$14
 
$97
Balance as of December 31, 2019Balance as of December 31, 2019$129 $14 $143 
Restructuring costs accruedRestructuring costs accrued71 71 
Cash paid outCash paid out55 55 
Balance as of December 31, 2020Balance as of December 31, 2020$145 $14 $159 

Total restructuring charges in 2016 were comprised of the following:
  
Employee retention and severance expenses and other benefits-related costs

 Contracted economic development costs Total
  (In Millions)
Balance as of January 1, 2016 
$—
 
$—
 
$—
Restructuring costs accrued 74
 21
 95
Non-cash portion (3) 
 (3)
Cash paid out 1
 
 1
Balance as of December 31, 2016 
$70
 
$21
 
$91


In addition, Entergy Wholesale Commodities incurred $0.5 billion$19 million in 20172020, $290 million in 2019, and $2.8 billion$532 million in 20162018 of impairment, loss on sales, and other related charges associated with these strategic decisions and transactions. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of these impairment charges.


Going forward, Entergy Wholesale Commodities expects to incur employee retention and severance expenses of approximately $165$40 million in 20182021 and approximately $205$15 million from 2019 through mid-2022in 2022 associated with these strategic transactions.


Geographic Areas


For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, the amount of revenue Entergy derived from outside of the United States was insignificant.  As of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, Entergy had no long-lived assets located outside of the United States.


Registrant Subsidiaries


Each of the Registrant Subsidiaries has one reportable segment, which is an integrated utility business, except for System Energy, which is an electricity generation business.  Each of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ operations is managed on an integrated basis by that company because of the substantial effect of cost-based rates and regulatory oversight on the business process, cost structures, and operating results.





194

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


NOTE 14.  ACQUISITIONS, DISPOSITIONS, AND IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans)Mississippi)


Acquisitions


Union PowerChoctaw Generating Station


In March 2016,October 2019, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New OrleansMississippi purchased the Union PowerChoctaw Generating Station, a 1,980an 810 MW (summer rating) power generation facilitynatural gas fired combined-cycle turbine plant located near El Dorado, Arkansas,French Camp, Mississippi, from Union Power Partners, L.P.a subsidiary of GenOn Energy Inc. The Union Power Station consists of four natural gas-fired, combined-cycle gas turbine power blocks, each rated at 495 MW (summer rating). Entergy Louisiana purchased two of the power blocks and a 50% undivided ownership interest in certain assets related to the facility, and Entergy Arkansas and Entergy New Orleans each purchased one power block and a 25% undivided ownership interest in such related assets. The aggregate purchase price for the Union PowerChoctaw Generating Station was approximately $949 million (approximately $237 million for each power block and associated assets).

Palisades Purchased Power Agreement

Entergy’s purchase of the Palisades plant in 2007 included a unit-contingent, 15-year purchased power agreement (PPA) with Consumers Energy for 100% of the plant’s output, excluding any future uprates.  Prices under the PPA range from $43.50/MWh in 2007 to $61.50/MWh in 2022, and the average price under the PPA is $51/MWh.  For the PPA, which was at below-market prices at the time of the acquisition, Entergy will amortize a liability to revenue over the life of the agreement.  The amount that will be amortized each period is based upon the present value, calculated at the date of acquisition, of each year’s difference between revenue under the agreement and revenue based on estimated market prices.  Amounts amortized to revenue were $28 million in 2017, $13 million in 2016, and $15 million in 2015.  

In December 2016, Entergy reached an agreement with Consumers Energy to amend the existing PPA to terminate early, on May 31, 2018. Pursuant to the agreement to amend the PPA, Consumers Energy would pay Entergy $172 million for the early termination of the PPA. The PPA amendment agreement was subject to regulatory approvals, including approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Separately, Entergy intended to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on October 1, 2018, after refueling in the spring of 2017 and operating through the end of that fuel cycle. Entergy updated the liability amortization calculation to reflect the expected early termination of the PPA.

In September 2017 the Michigan Public Service Commission issued an order conditionally approving the PPA amendment transaction, but only granting Consumers Energy recovery of $136.6 million of the $172 million requested early termination payment. As a result, Entergy and Consumers Energy agreed to terminate the PPA amendment agreement. Entergy will continue to operate Palisades under the current PPA with Consumers Energy, instead of shutting down in the fall of 2018 as previously planned. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on May 31, 2022. Based on that decision, the amounts to be amortized to revenue for the next five years will be approximately $6 million in 2018, $10 million in 2019, $11 million in 2020, $12 million in 2021, and $5 million in 2022.

NYPA Value Sharing Agreements

Entergy’s purchase of the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 plants from NYPA included value sharing agreements with NYPA.  In October 2007, Entergy subsidiaries and NYPA amended and restated the value sharing agreements to clarify and amend certain provisions of the original terms.  Under the amended value sharing agreements, Entergy subsidiaries made annual payments to NYPA based on the generation output of the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants from January 2007 through December 2014.  Entergy subsidiaries paid NYPA $6.59 per MWh for power sold from Indian Point 3, up to an annual cap of $48 million, and $3.91 per MWh for power sold from FitzPatrick, up to an annual

$305 million.
195
199

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements







capWashington Parish Energy Center

In April 2017, Entergy Louisiana entered into an agreement with a subsidiary of $24Calpine Corporation for the construction and purchase of Washington Parish Energy Center, which consists of two natural gas-fired combustion turbine units with a total nominal capacity of approximately 361 MW. In November 2020, Entergy Louisiana completed the purchase, as approved by the LPSC, of the Washington Parish Energy Center. The total investment including transmission and other related costs, is approximately $261 million, including a payment of $222 million to purchase the plant.

Dispositions

Pilgrim

In July 2018, Entergy entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Holtec International to sell to a Holtec subsidiary 100% of the equity interests in Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, the owner of the Pilgrim plant. In August 2019 the NRC approved the sale of the plant to Holtec. The transaction closed in August 2019 for a purchase price of $1,000 (subject to adjustments for net liabilities and other amounts). The sale included the transfer of the Pilgrim nuclear decommissioning trust and the asset retirement obligation for spent fuel management and plant decommissioning. The transaction resulted in a loss of $190 million ($156 million net-of-tax) in the third quarter 2019. The disposition-date fair value of the nuclear decommissioning trust fund was approximately $1,030 million and the disposition-date fair value of the asset retirement obligation was $837 million. The annual paymenttransaction also included property, plant, and equipment with a net book value of 0, materials and supplies, and prepaid assets.

Willow Glen

In December 2018, Entergy Louisiana sold the Willow Glen Power Station, a non-operating gas plant. Entergy Louisiana sold Willow Glen for each year’s output was due by January 15approximately $12 million in cash and the transfer of the following year, andobligation to decommission the final paymentplant. Entergy Louisiana recognized a regulatory liability of $5.7 million for return of removal costs previously collected in rates. Entergy Louisiana realized a pre-tax gain of $14.8 million on the sale. Entergy Louisiana recorded a $31.9 million regulatory liability to NYPA was made in January 2015.  Entergy recordedrecognize the liabilityobligation to refund excess customer collections for payments to NYPA as power was generated and sold by Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick.  An amount equal to the liability was recorded to the plant asset account as contingent purchase price consideration for the plants.decommissioning Willow Glen.


Dispositions

Vermont Yankee


In November 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell 100% of the membership interests in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC to a subsidiary of NorthStar. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee iswas the owner of the Vermont Yankee plant and is in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment.plant. The sale of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to NorthStar will includeincluded the transfer of the nuclear decommissioning trust fund and the asset retirement obligation for the spent fuel management and decommissioning of the plant.


In March 2018, Entergy and NorthStar entered into a settlement agreement and a Memorandum of Understanding with State of Vermont agencies and other interested parties that set forth the terms on which the agencies and parties support the Vermont Public Utility Commission’s approval of the transaction. The agreements provide additional financial assurance for decommissioning, spent fuel management and site restoration, and detail the site restoration standards. In October 2018 the NRC issued an order approving the application to transfer Vermont Yankee’s license to NorthStar for decommissioning. In December 2018, the Vermont Public Utility Commission issued an order approving the transaction consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding’s terms. On January 11, 2019, Entergy and NorthStar closed the transaction.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee hashad an outstanding credit facility with borrowing capacity of $145 millionthat was used to pay for dry fuel storage costs. This credit facility iswas guaranteed by Entergy Corporation. At or before closing, aA subsidiary of Entergy will assumeassumed the
200

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

obligations under the existing credit facility, or enter into a new credit facility and Entergy will guarantee the credit facility.which remains outstanding. At the closing of the sale transaction, NorthStar will pay $1,000 for the membership interests incaused Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, andrenamed NorthStar will cause Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, to issue a $139 million promissory note to anthe Entergy subsidiary.subsidiary that assumed the credit facility obligations. The amount of the promissory note issued will be equal toincluded the amount drawn underbalance outstanding on the credit facility, or the amount drawn under the new credit facility, plusas well as borrowing fees and costs incurred by Entergy in connection with suchthe credit facility. The principal amount drawn under

With the outstanding credit facility was $104 millionreceipt of the NRC and Vermont Public Utility Commission approvals and the resolution among the parties of the significant conditions of the sale, Entergy concluded that as of December 31, 2017, and the net book value of Entergy Nuclear2018 Vermont Yankee including unrealized gains on the decommissioning trust fund, as of December 31, 2017, was approximately $123 million.

in held for sale status. Entergy plans to transfer all spent nuclear fuel to dry cask storage by the end of 2018 in advance of the planned transaction close. Under the sale agreement and related agreements to be entered into at the closing, NorthStar will commit to initiate decommissioning and site restoration by 2021 and complete those activities by 2030. The original planned completion date, as outlined in Entergy’s Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report filed with the NRC, was 2075. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, under NorthStar ownership, will be required to repay the promissory note issued to Entergy with certain of the proceeds from the recovery of damages under its claims against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel disposal, with any balance remaining due at partial site release, subject to extension not to exceed two years from partial site release.

The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including approval by the NRC; approval by the State of Vermont Public Utility Commission, including approval of revised site restoration standards that have been proposed as part of the transaction; the transfer of all spent nuclear fuel to dry fuel storage on the independent spent fuel storage installation; and that the market value of the fund assets held in the decommissioning trust fund foraccordingly evaluated the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, lessasset retirement obligation in light of the hypothetical income tax onterms of the aggregate unrealized net gainsale transaction and evaluated the remaining values of such fund assets at closing, is equal to or exceeds $451.95the Vermont Yankee assets. These evaluations resulted in an increase in the asset retirement obligation and $173 million subject to adjustments. Entergy hasof asset impairment and related other charges in the option to contributefourth quarter 2018. See Note 9 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the asset retirement obligation. Upon closing of the transaction in January 2019, the Vermont Yankee decommissioning trust, fund ifalong with the value is less than $451.95 million, subjectdecommissioning obligation for the plant, was transferred to adjustments.NorthStar. The transaction is planned to close by the end of 2018.

FitzPatrick

In August 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell the FitzPatrick plant, an 838 MW nuclear power plant owned by Entergy in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment. As a result of the sales agreement and the status of the necessary regulatory approvals, the assets and liabilities associated with the sale of FitzPatrick to ExelonVermont Yankee were classified as held for sale on the Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries’Subsidiaries Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2016. At2018. As of December 31, 2016,2018, the receivable for the beneficial interest invalue of the decommissioning trust fund was $785$532 million. As of December 31, 2018, the asset retirement cost asset was $127 million, classified within other deferred debits, and the asset retirement cost obligation was $714 million, classified within

196

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


other non-current liabilities. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of FitzPatrick’s decommissioning liability and see Note 16 to the financial statements for further discussion of the receivables for the beneficial interest in FitzPatrick’s decommissioning trust fund.

In March 2017 the NRC approved the sale of the plant to Exelon. The transaction closed in March 2017 for a purchase price of $110 million, which included a $10 million non-refundable signing fee paid in August 2016, in addition to the assumption by Exelon of certain liabilities related to the FitzPatrick plant, resulting in a pre-tax gain on the sale of $16 million. At the transaction close, Exelon paid an additional $8 million for the proration of certain expenses prepaid by Entergy. The disposition-date fair value of the decommissioning trust fund was $805 million, classified within other deferred debits, and the disposition-date fair value of the asset retirement obligation was $727$568 million, classified within other non-current liabilities.

The transaction also included property, plant, and equipment with a net book value of zero, materials and supplies, and prepaid assets.

AsVermont Yankee spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to NorthStar as part of the transaction. The Vermont Yankee transaction resulted in Entergy entered intogenerating a reimbursement agreement with Exelon pursuant to which Exelon reimbursednet deferred tax asset in January 2019.  The deferred tax asset could not be fully realized by Entergy for specified out-of-pocket costs associated with Entergy’s operation of FitzPatrick prior to closing of the sale. In the first quarter 2017, Entergy billed Exelon for reimbursement of $98 million of other operation and maintenance expenses, $7 million in lost operating revenues, and $3 million in taxes other than income taxes, partially offset by a $10 million defueling credit to Exelon.

As discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements, as a result of the sale of FitzPatrick on March 31, 2017, Entergy redetermined the plant’s tax basis, resulting in a $44 million income tax benefit in the first quarter 2017.

Top Deer

In November 2016,of 2019; accordingly, Entergy sold its 50% membership interest in Top Deer Wind Ventures, LLC,accrued a wind-powered electric generation joint venture owned by Entergy in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment and accounted for as an equity method investment. Entergy sold its 50% membership interest in Top Deer for approximately $0.5 million and realized a pre-tax lossnet tax expense of $0.2$29 million on the sale.

Rhode Island State Energy Center

In December 2015, Entergy sold the Rhode Island State Energy Center, a 583 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating plant owned by Entergydisposition of Vermont Yankee. The transaction also resulted in other charges of $5.4 million ($4.2 million net-of-tax) in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment. Entergy sold the Rhode Island State Energy Center for approximately $490 million and realized a pre-tax gain of $154 million on the sale.first quarter 2019.


Impairment of Long-lived Assets


2015 Impairment Conclusions2018, 2019, and 2020 Impairments

Entergy determined in October 2015 that it would close FitzPatrick at the end of its fuel cycle, which was planned for January 27, 2017, because of poor market conditions that led to reduced revenues, a poor market design that failed to properly compensate nuclear generators for the benefits they provide, and increased operational costs. This decision came after management’s extensive analysis of whether it was advisable economically to refuel the plant, as scheduled, in the fall of 2016. Entergy also had discussions with the State of New York regarding the future of FitzPatrick. Because of the uncertainty regarding the refueling decision and its implications to the plant’s expected operating life, Entergy tested the recoverability of the plant and related assets as of September 30, 2015. See above in the Dispositions section for further information on the subsequent decision to sell the FitzPatrick plant.


Entergy determined in October 2015 that it would close Pilgrim no later than June 1, 2019 because of poor market conditions that ledcontinues to reduced revenues, a poor market design that failed to properly compensate nuclear generators for the benefits they provide, and increased operational costs. The decision came after management’s extensive analysis of the economics and operating life of the plant following the NRC’s decision in September 2015

197

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


to place the plant inexecute its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Because of the uncertainty regarding the plant’s operating life created by the NRC’s decision and management’s analysis of the plant, Entergy tested the recoverability of the plant and related assets as of September 30, 2015.

Due to the announced plant closures in October 2015, as well as the continued challenging market price trend, the high level of investment required to continue to operate the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants, and the inadequate compensation provided to nuclear generators for their capacity benefits under the current market design, in the fourth quarter 2015, Entergy tested the recoverability of the plant and related assets of the two remaining operating nuclear power generating facilities in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, Palisades and Indian Point. For purposes of that evaluation, Entergy considered a number of factors associated with the facilities’ continued operation, including the status of the associated NRC licenses, the status of state regulatory issues, existing power purchase agreements, and the supply region in which the nuclear facilities sell energy and capacity.

Under generally accepted accounting principles the determination of an asset’s recoverability is based on the probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows expected to be generated by the plant and related assets. Projected net cash flows primarily depend on the status of the operations of the plant and pending legal and state regulatory matters, as well as projections of future revenues and costs over the estimated remaining life of the plant.

The tests for FitzPatrick and Pilgrim indicated that the probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows did not exceed the carrying values of the plants and related assets as of September 30, 2015.

The test for Palisades indicated that the probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows did not exceed the carrying value of the plant and related assets as of December 31, 2015.

The test for Indian Point indicated that the probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows exceeded the carrying value of the plant and related assets as of December 31, 2015. As such, the carrying value of Indian Point was not impaired as of December 31, 2015.

As of September 30, 2015, the estimated fair value of the FitzPatrick plant and related long-lived assets was $29 million, while the carrying value was $742 million, resulting in an impairment charge of $713 million. Materials and supplies were evaluated and written down by $48 million. In addition, FitzPatrick had a contract asset recorded for an agreement between Entergy subsidiaries and NYPA entered when Entergy subsidiaries purchased FitzPatrick from NYPA in 2000 and NYPA retained the decommissioning trusts and the decommissioning liabilities. The agreement gave NYPA the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume the decommissioning liability provided that it assigns the decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to Entergy. If NYPA retained the decommissioning liabilities, the Entergy subsidiaries would perform the decommissioning of the plant at a price equal to the lesser of a pre-specified level or the amount in the decommissioning trusts. The contract asset represented an estimate of the present value of the difference between the Entergy subsidiaries’ stipulated contract amount for decommissioning the plants less the decommissioning costs estimated in independent decommissioning cost studies. See Note 9 for further discussion of the contract asset. Due to a change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows, the result was a write down of the contract asset from $335 million to $131 million, for a charge of $204 million. In summary, as of September 30, 2015, the impairment and related charges for FitzPatrick was $965 million ($624 million net-of-tax).

As of September 30, 2015, the estimated fair value of the Pilgrim plant and related long-lived assets is $65 million, while the carrying value was $718 million, resulting in an impairment charge of $653 million. Materials and supplies were evaluated and written down by $24 million. In summary, as of September 30, 2015, the total impairment loss and related charges for Pilgrim was $677 million ($438 million net-of-tax). The pre-impairment carrying value of $718 million includes the effect of a $134 million increase in Pilgrim’s estimated decommissioning cost liability and the related asset retirement cost asset. The increase in the estimated decommissioning cost liability primarily resulted from the change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows.

198

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


As of December 31, 2015, the estimated fair value of the Palisades plant and related long-lived assets was $463 million, while the carrying value was $859 million, resulting in an impairment charge of $396 million ($256 million net-of-tax). The pre-impairment carrying value of $859 million includes the effect of a $42 million increase in Palisades’ estimated decommissioning cost liability and the related asset retirement cost asset. The increase in the estimated decommissioning cost liability primarily resulted from the assessment of the estimated decommissioning cash flows that occurred in conjunction with the impairment analysis.

2016 Impairment Conclusions

As discussed in more detail above in the Acquisitionssection, in December 2016, Entergy reached an agreement with Consumers Energy to amend the existing PPA to terminate early, on May 31, 2018. The PPA amendment agreement was subject to regulatory approvals, including approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Separately, Entergy intendedstrategy to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on October 1, 2018, after refueling in the spring of 2017 and operating through the end of that fuel cycle. As a resultsell all of the remaining plants in Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant nuclear fleet, with planned PPA termination and its intention to shut down the plant, Entergy tested the recoverabilityshutdowns of the plant and related assets as of December 31, 2016. Entergy and Consumers Energy subsequently agreed to terminate the PPA amendment agreement and Entergy now intends to shut down the Palisades plant permanently on May 31, 2022.

Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 have an application pending for renewed NRC licenses.  Various parties, including the State of New York, expressed opposition to renewal of the licenses.  Under federal law, nuclear power plants may continue to operate beyond their original license expiration dates while their timely filed renewal applications are pending NRC approval.  Indian Point 2 reached the expiration date of its original NRC operating license on September 28, 2013, and Indian Point 3 reached the expiration date of its original NRC operating license on December 12, 2015. Upon expiration of their operating licenses, each plant entered into a period of extended operation under the timely renewal rule.

In January 2017, Entergy announced that it reached a settlement with New York State to shut down Indian Point 2 by April 30, 2020 and Indian Point 3 by April 30, 2021 and resolve all New York State-initiated legal challenges to Indian Point’s operating license renewal. As part of the settlement, New York State agreed to issue Indian Point’s water quality certification and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency certification and to withdraw its objection to license renewal before the NRC. New York State also agreed to issue a water discharge permit, which is required regardless of whether the plant is seeking a renewed NRC license.Palisades by May 31, 2022. The shutdowns are conditioned, among other things, upon such actions being taken by New York State. As a result of its evaluation of alternatives to the continued operation of the Indian Point plants, and taking into consideration the status of negotiations with the State of New York, Entergy tested the recoverability of the plants and related assets as of December 31, 2016.

2 plant permanently ceased operations on April 30, 2020. The tests for Palisades and Indian Point indicated that the probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows did not exceed the carrying values of the plants and related assets as of December 31, 2016.

As of December 31, 2016 the estimated fair value of the Palisades plant and related long-lived assets was $206 million, while the carrying value was $558 million, resulting in an impairment charge of $352 million. Materials and supplies were evaluated and written down by $48 million. In summary, as of December 31, 2016, the total impairment loss and related charges for Palisades was $400 million ($258 million net-of-tax). The pre-impairment carrying value of $558 million included the effect of a $129 million increase in Palisades’ estimated decommissioning cost liability and the related asset retirement cost asset. The increase in the estimated decommissioning cost liability primarily resulted from the change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion regarding the Palisades decommissioning cost revision.

As of December 31, 2016 the estimated fair value of the Indian Point plants and related long-lived assets was $433 million, while the carrying value was $2,619 million, resulting in an impairment charge of $2,186 million. Materials and supplies were evaluated and written down by $157 million. In summary, as of December 31, 2016, the total impairment loss and related charges for Indian Point was $2,343 million ($1,511 million net-of-tax). The pre-

199

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


impairment carrying value of $2,619 million included the effect of a $392 million increase in Indian Point’s estimated decommissioning cost liability and the related asset retirement cost asset. The increase in the estimated decommissioning cost liability primarily resulted from the change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion regarding the Indian Point decommissioning cost revision.

2017 Impairment Conclusions

In 2017 Entergy management continued to execute the strategy to reduce the size ofother three Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet, with the planned shutdowns ofnuclear plants, FitzPatrick, Vermont Yankee, and Pilgrim, by May 31, 2019, Indian Point 2 by April 30, 2020, Indian Point 3 by April 30, 2021, and, as discussed in further detail above in the Acquisitions section, Palisades on May 31, 2022.have been sold. The FitzPatrick plant was classified as held-for-sale at December 31, 2016, and subsequently sold to Exelon in March 2017. The Vermont Yankee plant was classified as held-for-sale at December 31, 2018, and subsequently sold to NorthStar on January 11, 2019. The Pilgrim plant was sold to Holtec International on August 26, 2019.


In 2017 Entergy Wholesale Commodities incurred $538$19 million in 2020, $100 million in 2019, and $532 million in 2018 of impairment charges related to nuclear fuel spending, nuclear refueling outage spending, and expenditures for capital assets.assets, and asset retirement obligation revisions. These costs were charged to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired fair value of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size ofexit the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’Commodities merchant fleet.power business.


As discussed above in the Acquisitions section, as a result of the Michigan Public Service Commission only grantingWith respect to Palisades, Entergy and Consumers Energy partial recovery ofhad agreed to amend the requestedexisting PPA so that it would terminate early, termination payment,on May 31, 2018. In September 2017, however, Entergy and Consumers Energy agreed to terminate the PPA amendment agreement in September 2017.agreement. Entergy will continuecontinues to operate Palisades under the current PPA with Consumers Energy, instead of shutting down in the fall of 2018 as previously planned. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades plant permanently onno later than May 31, 2022. As a result of the change in expected operating life of the Palisades plant, the expected probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows as of September 30, 2017 exceeded the carrying value of the plant and related assets. Accordingly, nuclear fuel spending, nuclear refueling
201

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




outage spending, and expenditures for capital assets incurred at Palisades after September 30, 2017 are no longer charged to expense as incurred, but recorded as assets and depreciated or amortized, subject to the typical periodic impairment reviews prescribed in the accounting rules.

Overall Regarding All Impairments


The impairments and other related charges are recorded as a separate line item in Entergy’s consolidated statements of operations and are included within the results of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment. In addition to the impairments and other related charges, Entergy expects to incur additional charges through mid-2022 associated with these strategic transactions. See Note 13 to the financial statements for further discussion of these additional charges.


2018 Pilgrim Impairment

The fair value analysesPilgrim plant ceased operations on May 31, 2019, at the end of its current fuel cycle. Entergy Nuclear Generation Company filed its Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) with the NRC in the fourth quarter 2018 for FitzPatrick,the Pilgrim and Palisades in 2015, and Palisades and Indian Point in 2016, were performed based on the income approach, a discounted cash flow method, to determine the amount of impairment. The estimates of fair value were based on the prices that Entergy would expect to receive in hypothetical salesplant. As part of the FitzPatrick,development of the PSDAR, Entergy obtained a revised decommissioning cost study in the third quarter 2018. The revised estimate resulted in a $117.5 million increase in the decommissioning cost liability and a corresponding impairment charge in the third quarter 2018. As discussed above in Dispositions, on August 26, 2019, Entergy sold the Pilgrim Palisades,plant to a Holtec International subsidiary.

2018 Vermont Yankee Impairment

As discussed above in Dispositions, on January 11, 2019, Entergy sold the Vermont Yankee plant to NorthStar. With the receipt of the NRC and Indian Point plantsVermont Public Utility Commission approvals and the resolution among the parties of the significant conditions of the sale, Entergy concluded that as of December 31, 2018 Vermont Yankee was in held-for- sale status. Entergy accordingly evaluated the Vermont Yankee asset retirement obligation in light of the terms of the sale transaction, and evaluated the remaining values of the Vermont Yankee assets. These evaluations resulted in $173 million of asset impairment and related assets to a market participant. In order to determine these prices, Entergy used significant observable inputs, including quoted forward power and gas prices, where available. Significant unobservable inputs, such as projected long-term pre-tax operating margins (cash basis) and estimated weighted-average costs of capital, were also usedcharges in the estimation of fair value. In addition, Entergy made certain assumptions regarding future tax deductions associated withfourth quarter 2018. See Note 9 to the plants and related assets, the amount and timing of recoveries from future litigation with the DOE related to spent fuel storage costs, and the expected operating lifefinancial statements for additional discussion of the plant.  Based on the use of significant unobservable inputs, the fair value measurement for the entiretyrevision of the asset group, and for each type of asset within the asset group, are classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy discussed in Note 15 to the financial statements.retirement obligation.




200

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


The following table sets forth a description of significant unobservable inputs used in the valuation of the FitzPatrick, Pilgrim, Palisades, and Indian Point plants and related assets:
Significant Unobservable Inputs Amount Weighted-Average
2015    
Weighted-average cost of capital    
FitzPatrick 7.5% 7.5%
Pilgrim (a) 7.5%-8.0% 7.9%
Palisades 7.5% 7.5%
     
Long-term pre-tax operating margin (cash basis)    
FitzPatrick 10.2% 10.2%
Pilgrim (a) 2.4%-10.6% 8.1%
Palisades (b) 30.8% 30.8%
     
2016    
Weighted-average cost of capital    
Indian Point (c) 
7.0%-7.5%

 7.2%
Palisades 6.5% 6.5%
     
Long-term pre-tax operating margin (cash basis)    
Indian Point 19.7% 19.7%
Palisades (b) (d) 
17.8%-38.8%

 34.6%

(a)The fair value of Pilgrim was based on the probability weighting of two potential scenarios.
(b)Most of the Palisades output is sold under a 15-year power purchase agreement, entered at the plant’s acquisition in 2007, that is scheduled to expire in 2022. The power purchase agreement prices currently exceed market prices and escalate each year, up to $61.50/MWh in 2022.
(c)The cash flows extending through the 2021 shutdown at Indian Point 3 were assigned a higher discount factor to incorporate the increased risk associated with longer operations.
(d)The fair value of Palisades at December 31, 2016 is based on the probability weighting of whether the PPA will terminate before the originally scheduled termination in 2022.

Entergy’s Accounting Policy and Entergy Wholesale Commodities Accounting group, which reports to the Chief Accounting Officer, was primarily responsible for determining the valuation of the FitzPatrick, Pilgrim, Palisades and Indian Point plants and related assets, in consultation with external advisors. Entergy’s Accounting Policy group obtained and reviewed information from other Entergy departments with expertise on the various inputs and assumptions that were necessary to calculate the fair values of the asset groups.


NOTE 15.  RISK MANAGEMENT AND FAIR VALUES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Market Risk


In the normal course of business, Entergy is exposed to a number of market risks.  Market risk is the potential loss that Entergy may incur as a result of changes in the market or fair value of a particular commodity or instrument.  All financial and commodity-related instruments, including derivatives, are subject to market risk including commodity

201

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


price risk, equity price, and interest rate risk.  Entergy uses derivatives primarily to mitigate commodity price risk, particularly power price and fuel price risk.


The Utility has limited exposure to the effects of market risk because it operates primarily under cost-based rate regulation.  To the extent approved by their retail regulators, the Utility operating companies use derivative instruments to hedge the exposure to price volatility inherent in their purchased power, fuel, and gas purchased for resale costs that are recovered from customers.


As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy and capacity in the day ahead or spot markets.  In addition to its forward physical power and gas contracts, Entergy Wholesale Commodities may also usesuse a combination of financial contracts, including swaps, collars, and options, to mitigate commodity price risk.  When the market price falls, the combination of instruments
202

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

is expected to settle in gains that offset lower revenue from generation, which results in a more predictable cash flow.


Entergy’s exposure to market risk is determined by a number of factors, including the size, term, composition, and diversification of positions held, as well as market volatility and liquidity.  For instruments such as options, the time period during which the option may be exercised and the relationship between the current market price of the underlying instrument and the option’s contractual strike or exercise price also affects the level of market risk.  A significant factor influencing the overall level of market risk to which Entergy is exposed is its use of hedging techniques to mitigate such risk.  Hedging instruments and volumes are chosen based on ability to mitigate risk associated with future energy and capacity prices; however, other considerations are factored into hedge product and volume decisions including corporate liquidity, corporate credit ratings, counterparty credit risk, hedging costs, firm settlement risk, and product availability in the marketplace.  Entergy manages market risk by actively monitoring compliance with stated risk management policies as well as monitoring the effectiveness of its hedging policies and strategies.  Entergy’s risk management policies limit the amount of total net exposure and rolling net exposure during the stated periods.  These policies, including related risk limits, are regularly assessed to ensure their appropriateness given Entergy’s objectives.


Derivatives


Some derivative instruments are classified as cash flow hedges due to their financial settlement provisions while others are classified as normal purchase/normal sale transactions due to their physical settlement provisions.  Normal purchase/normal sale risk management tools include power purchase and sales agreements, fuel purchase agreements, capacity contracts, and tolling agreements.  Financially-settled cash flow hedges can include natural gas and electricity swaps and options and interest rate swaps.  Entergy may enter into financially-settled swap and option contracts to manage market risk that may or may not be designated as hedging instruments.


Entergy enters into derivatives to manage natural risks inherent in its physical or financial assets or liabilities. Electricity over-the-counter instruments and futures contracts that financially settle against day-ahead power pool prices are used to manage price exposure for Entergy Wholesale Commodities generation.  The maximum length of time over which Entergy Wholesale Commodities is currently hedging the variability in future cash flows with derivatives for forecasted power transactions at December 31, 20172020 is approximately 3.25 years.3 months.  Planned generation currently under contract from Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants is 98% for 2018,2021, of which approximately 79%29% is sold under financial derivatives and the remainder under normal purchase/normal sale contracts.  Total planned generation for 20182021 is 27.99.6 TWh. 


Entergy may use standardized master netting agreements to help mitigate the credit risk of derivative instruments. These master agreements facilitate the netting of cash flows associated with a single counterparty and may include collateral requirements. Cash, letters of credit, and parental/affiliate guarantees may be obtained as security from counterparties in order to mitigate credit risk. The collateral agreements require a counterparty to post cash or letters of credit in the event an exposure exceeds an established threshold. The threshold represents an unsecured credit limit, which may be supported by a parental/affiliate guaranty,guarantee, as determined in accordance with Entergy’s credit policy.

202

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


In addition, collateral agreements allow for termination and liquidation of all positions in the event of a failure or inability to post collateral.


Certain of the agreements to sell the power produced by Entergy Wholesale Commodities power plants contain provisions that require an Entergy subsidiary to provide credit support to secure its obligations depending on the mark-to-market values of the contracts. The primary form of credit support to satisfy these requirements is an Entergy Corporation guarantee.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, there were no derivative contracts with eight counterparties were in a liability position (approximately $65 million total).position. In addition to the corporate guarantee, $1$5 million in cash collateral was required to be posted by the Entergy subsidiary to its counterparties and $4 million in cash collateral and $34$39 million in letters of credit were required to be posted by its counterparties to the Entergy subsidiary. As of December 31, 2016,2019, there were no derivative contracts with three counterparties were in a liability position (approximately $8 million total).position. In addition to the corporate guarantee, $2$11 million in cash collateral was
203

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




required to be posted by the Entergy subsidiary to its counterparties.counterparties and $1 million in cash collateral and $98 million in letters of credit were required to be posted by its counterparties to the Entergy subsidiary. If the Entergy Corporation credit rating falls below investment grade, Entergy would have to post collateral equal to the estimated outstanding liability under the contract at the applicable date.   


Entergy manages fuel price volatility for its Louisiana jurisdictions (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) and Entergy Mississippi through the purchase of short-term natural gas swaps and options that financially settle against either the average Henry Hub Gas Daily prices or the NYMEX futures.Henry Hub. These swaps and options are marked-to-market through fuel expense with offsetting regulatory assets or liabilities. All benefits or costs of the program are recorded in fuel costs. The notional volumes of these swaps are based on a portion of projected annual exposure to gas price volatility for electric generation at Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Mississippi and projected winter purchases for gas distribution at Entergy New Orleans. The maximum length of time over which Entergy had executed natural gas swaps and options as of December 31, 2020 is 3.25 years for Entergy Louisiana and the maximum length of time over which Entergy has executed natural gas swaps as of December 31, 2020 is 10 months for Entergy Mississippi and 3 months Entergy New Orleans. The total volume of natural gas swaps and options outstanding as of December 31, 20172020 is 38,540,75038,799,000 MMBtu for Entergy, including 31,361,50023,720,000 MMBtu for Entergy Louisiana, 6,714,25014,573,000 MMBtu for Entergy Mississippi, and 465,000506,000 MMBtu for Entergy New Orleans.  Credit support for these natural gas swaps and options is covered by master agreements that do not require Entergy to provide collateral based on mark-to-market value, but do carry adequate assurance language that may lead to requests for collateral.


During the second quarter 2017,2020, Entergy participated in the annual financial transmission rights auction process for the MISO planning year of June 1, 20172020 through May 31, 2018.2021. Financial transmission rights are derivative instruments whichthat represent economic hedges of future congestion charges that will be incurred in serving Entergy’s customer load. They are not designated as hedging instruments. Entergy initially records financial transmission rights at their estimated fair value and subsequently adjusts the carrying value to their estimated fair value at the end of each accounting period prior to settlement. Unrealized gains or losses on financial transmission rights held by Entergy Wholesale Commodities are included in operating revenues. The Utility operating companies recognize regulatory liabilities or assets for unrealized gains or losses on financial transmission rights. The total volume of financial transmission rights outstanding as of December 31, 20172020 is 46,47457,196 GWh for Entergy, including 10,47914,138 GWh for Entergy Arkansas, 20,59026,679 GWh for Entergy Louisiana, 6,3916,362 GWh for Entergy Mississippi, 2,3662,618 GWh for Entergy New Orleans, and 6,3227,205 GWh for Entergy Texas. Credit support for financial transmission rights held by the Utility operating companies is covered by cash and/or letters of credit issued by each Utility operating company as required by MISO. Credit support for financial transmission rights held by Entergy Wholesale Commodities is covered by cash. No cash or letters of credit were required to be posted for financial transmission rights exposure for Entergy Wholesale Commodities as of December 31, 20172020 and December 31, 2016.2019. Letters of credit posted with MISO covered the financial transmission rights exposure for Entergy Arkansas,Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas as of December 31, 20172020 and for Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi as of December 31, 2016.2019.



203
204

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



The fair values of Entergy’s derivative instruments in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 20172020 are shown in the table below. Certain investments, including those not designated as hedging instruments, are subject to master netting agreements and are presented in the balance sheet on a net basis in accordance with accounting guidance for derivatives and hedging.
InstrumentBalance Sheet LocationGross Fair Value (a)Offsetting Position (b)Net Fair Value (c) (d)Business
(In Millions)
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments    
     
Assets:    
Electricity swaps and optionsPrepayments and other (current portion)$39($1)$38Entergy Wholesale Commodities
     
Liabilities:    
Electricity swaps and optionsOther current liabilities (current portion)$1($1)$0Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Instrument Balance Sheet Location Fair Value (a) Offset (b) Net (c) (d) Business
    (In Millions)  
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments          
           
Assets:          
Electricity swaps and options Prepayments and other (current portion) $19 ($19) $— Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Electricity swaps and options
Other deferred debits and other assets (non-current portion) $19 ($14) $5 Entergy Wholesale Commodities
           
Liabilities:          
Electricity swaps and options Other current liabilities (current portion) $86 ($20) $66 Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Electricity swaps and options Other non-current liabilities (non-current portion) $17 ($14) $3 Entergy Wholesale Commodities

Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments    
     
Assets:    
Natural gas swaps and optionsPrepayments and other (current portion)$1$—$1Utility
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther deferred debits and other assets (non-current portion)$1$—$1Utility
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$9$—$9Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities
     
Liabilities:    
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther current liabilities (current portion)$6 $0 $6Utility
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther non-current liabilities (non-current portion)$1$0$1Utility

205
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments          
           
Assets:          
Electricity swaps and options Prepayments and other (current portion) $9 ($9) $— Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Financial transmission rights Prepayments and other $22 ($1) $21 Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities
           
Liabilities:          
Electricity swaps and options Other current liabilities (current portion) $9 ($8) $1 Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Natural gas swaps Other current liabilities $6 $— $6 Utility


204

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






The fair values of Entergy’s derivative instruments in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 20162019 are shown in the table below. Certain investments, including those not designated as hedging instruments, are subject to master netting agreements and are presented in the balance sheet on a net basis in accordance with accounting guidance for derivatives and hedging.
InstrumentBalance Sheet LocationGross Fair Value (a)Offsetting Position (b)Net Fair Value (c) (d)Business
(In Millions)
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments
Assets:
Electricity swaps and optionsPrepayments and other (current portion)$92($1)$91Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Electricity swaps and optionsOther deferred debits and other assets (non-current portion)$17$0$17Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Liabilities:    
Electricity swaps and optionsOther current liabilities (current portion)$1($1)$0Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Instrument Balance Sheet Location Fair Value (a) Offset (b) Net (c) (d) Business
    (In Millions)  
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments          
           
Assets:          
Electricity swaps and options Prepayments and other (current portion) $25 ($14) $11 Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Electricity swaps and options Other deferred debits and other assets (non-current portion) $6 ($6) $— Entergy Wholesale Commodities
           
Liabilities:          
Electricity swaps and options Other current liabilities (current portion) $11 ($10) $1 Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Electricity swaps and options Other non-current liabilities (non-current portion) $16 ($7) $9 Entergy Wholesale Commodities

Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments    
Assets:    
Electricity swaps and optionsPrepayments and other (current portion)$11($1)$10Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther deferred debits and other assets (non-current portion)$1$0$1Utility
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$10$0$10Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Liabilities:    
Electricity swaps and optionsOther current liabilities (current portion)$2($2)$0Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther current liabilities (current portion)$5$—$5Utility
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther non-current liabilities (non-current portion)$2$—$2Utility

(a)Represents the gross amounts of recognized assets/liabilities
(b)Represents the netting of fair value balances with the same counterparty
(c)Represents the net amounts of assets/liabilities presented on the Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries’ Consolidated Balance Sheet
(d)Excludes cash collateral in the amount of $5 million posted as of December 31, 2020 and $11 million posted and $1 million held as of December 31, 2019. Also excludes letters of credit in the amount of $1 million posted and $39 million held as of December 31, 2020 and $98 million held as of December 31, 2019.
206
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments          
           
Assets:          
Electricity swaps and options Prepayments and other (current portion) $18 ($13) $5 Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Electricity swaps and options Other deferred debits and other assets (non-current portion) $5 ($5) $— Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Natural gas swaps Prepayments and other $13 $— $13 Utility
Financial transmission rights Prepayments and other $22 ($1) $21 Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities
           
Liabilities:          
Electricity swaps and options Other current liabilities (current portion) $18 ($17) $1 Entergy Wholesale Commodities
Electricity swaps and options Other non-current liabilities (non-current portion) $4 ($4) $— Entergy Wholesale Commodities

(a)Represents the gross amounts of recognized assets/liabilities
(b)Represents the netting of fair value balances with the same counterparty
(c)Represents the net amounts of assets/liabilities presented on the Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries’ Consolidated Balance Sheet
(d)Excludes cash collateral in the amount of $1 million posted and $4 million held as of December 31, 2017 and $2 million posted as of December 31, 2016. Also excludes $34 million in letters of credit held as of December 31, 2017.

205

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




The effects of Entergy’s derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges on the consolidated income statements for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 are as follows:
InstrumentAmount of gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive incomeIncome Statement locationAmount of gain (loss) reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income into income (a)
 (In Millions) (In Millions)
2020   
Electricity swaps and options$77Competitive business operating revenues$148
    
2019   
Electricity swaps and options$232Competitive business operating revenues$97
    
2018   
Electricity swaps and options($40)Competitive business operating revenues($68)
Instrument Amount of gain recognized in other comprehensive income Income Statement location Amount of gain (loss) reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income into income (a)
  (In Millions)   (In Millions)
2017      
Electricity swaps and options $44 Competitive business operating revenues $109
       
2016      
Electricity swaps and options $135 Competitive business operating revenues $293
       
2015      
Electricity swaps and options $254 Competitive business operating revenues ($244)


(a)Before taxes of $38 million, $103 million, and ($85) million, for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively

(a)Before taxes of $31 million, $20 million, and ($14) million, for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018, respectively
At each reporting period,
Prior to the adoption of ASU 2017-12, Entergy measuresmeasured its hedges for ineffectiveness. Any ineffectiveness iswas recognized in earnings during the period. The ineffective portion of cash flow hedges iswas recorded in competitive businesses operating revenues. The change in fair value of Entergy’s cash flow hedges due to ineffectiveness was ($3)5.9) million ($356) thousand, and $150 thousand for the yearsyear ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively.2018.

Based on market prices as of December 31, 2017,2020, unrealized gains recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income on cash flow hedges relating to power sales totaled $55$38 million of net unrealized losses.  Approximately ($59)$38 million is expected to be reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income to operating revenues in the next twelve months.  The actual amount reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income, however, could vary due to future changes in market prices. 


Entergy may effectively liquidate a cash flow hedge instrument by entering into a contract offsetting the original hedge, and then de-designating the original hedge in this situation.  Gains or losses accumulated in other comprehensive income prior to de-designation continue to be deferred in other comprehensive income until they are included in income as the original hedged transaction occurs. From the point of de-designation, the gains or losses on the original hedge and the offsetting contract are recorded as assets or liabilities on the balance sheet and offset as they flow through to earnings.


206
207

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






The effects of Entergy’s derivative instruments not designated as hedging instruments on the consolidated income statements for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 are as follows:
Instrument Amount of gain recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income Income Statement location Amount of gain (loss) recorded in the income statement
  (In Millions)   (In Millions)
2017      
Natural gas swaps $— Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale(a)($31)
Financial transmission rights $— Purchased power expense(b)$139
Electricity swaps and options $—(c)Competitive business operating revenues $—
       
2016      
Natural gas swaps $— Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale(a)$11
Financial transmission rights $— Purchased power expense(b)$125
Electricity swaps and options $—(c)Competitive business operating revenues ($11)
       
2015      
Natural gas swaps $— Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale(a)($41)
Financial transmission rights $— Purchased power expense(b)$166
Electricity swaps and options $12(c)Competitive business operating revenues ($19)

(a)InstrumentDue to regulatory treatment,Income Statement locationAmount of gain (loss) recorded in the naturalincome statement
(In Millions)
2020
Natural gas swaps are marked-to-market through fuel,and optionsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale and then such amounts are simultaneously reversed and recorded as an offsetting regulatory asset or liability.  The gains or losses recorded as fuel expenses when the swaps are settled are recovered or refunded through fuel cost recovery mechanisms.
(a)($12)
(b)Due to regulatory treatment, the changes in the estimated fair value of financialFinancial transmission rights for the Utility operating companies are recorded through purchasedPurchased power expense and then such amounts are simultaneously reversed and recorded as an offsetting regulatory asset or liability.  The gains or losses recorded as purchased power expense when the financial transmission rights for the Utility operating companies are settled are recovered or refunded through fuel cost recovery mechanisms.
(b)$92
(c)Amount of gain (loss) recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income from electricityElectricity swaps and options de-designated as hedged items.(c)Competitive business operating revenues$1
2019
Natural gas swaps and optionFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale(a)($13)
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power expense(b)$94
Electricity swaps and options (c)Competitive business operating revenues$12
2018
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale(a)$8
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power expense(b)$131
Electricity swaps and options (c)Competitive business operating revenues$8




(a)Due to regulatory treatment, the natural gas swaps and options are marked-to-market through fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale and then such amounts are simultaneously reversed and recorded as an offsetting regulatory asset or liability.  The gains or losses recorded as fuel expenses when the swaps and options are settled are recovered or refunded through fuel cost recovery mechanisms.
(b)Due to regulatory treatment, the changes in the estimated fair value of financial transmission rights for the Utility operating companies are recorded through purchased power expense and then such amounts are simultaneously reversed and recorded as an offsetting regulatory asset or liability.  The gains or losses recorded as purchased power expense when the financial transmission rights for the Utility operating companies are settled are recovered or refunded through fuel cost recovery mechanisms.
(c)There were no gains (losses) recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income from electricity swaps and options.



207
208

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



The fair values of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ derivative instruments not designated as hedging instruments on their balance sheets as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are shown in the table below. Certain investments, including those not designated as follows:hedging instruments, are subject to master netting agreements and are presented in the balance sheet on a net basis in accordance with accounting guidance for derivatives and hedging.
InstrumentBalance Sheet LocationGross Fair Value (a)Offsetting Position (b)Net Fair Value (c) (d)Registrant
  (In Millions) 
2020   
Assets:   
Natural gas swaps and optionsPrepayments and other$0.8$0$0.8Entergy Louisiana
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther deferred debits and other assets$0.5$0$0.5Entergy Louisiana
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$2.9($0.2)$2.7Entergy Arkansas
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$4.3($0.1)$4.2Entergy Louisiana
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$0.6$0$0.6Entergy Mississippi
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$0.2($0.1)$0.1Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$1.6$0$1.6Entergy Texas
Liabilities:
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther current liabilities$0.3$0$0.3Entergy Louisiana
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther non-current liabilities$1.3$0$1.3Entergy Louisiana
Natural gas swapsOther current liabilities$5.0$0$5.0Entergy Mississippi
Natural gas swapsOther current liabilities$0.3$0$0.3Entergy New Orleans


209
InstrumentBalance Sheet LocationFair Value (a)Registrant
(In Millions)
2017
Assets:
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$3.0Entergy Arkansas
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$10.2Entergy Louisiana
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$2.1Entergy Mississippi
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$2.2Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$3.4Entergy Texas
Liabilities:
Natural gas swapsOther current liabilities$5.0Entergy Louisiana
Natural gas swapsOther current liabilities$1.2Entergy Mississippi
Natural gas swapsOther current liabilities$0.2Entergy New Orleans
2016
Assets:
Natural gas swapsPrepayments and other$10.9Entergy Louisiana
Natural gas swapsPrepayments and other$2.3Entergy Mississippi
Natural gas swapsPrepayments and other$0.2Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$5.4Entergy Arkansas
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$8.5Entergy Louisiana
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$3.2Entergy Mississippi
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$1.1Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$3.1Entergy Texas

(a)As of December 31, 2017, letters of credit posted with MISO covered financial transmission rights exposure of $0.2 million for Entergy Arkansas, $0.1 million for Entergy Mississippi, and $0.05 million for Entergy Texas. As of December 31, 2016, letters of credit posted with MISO covered financial transmission rights exposure of $0.3 million for Entergy Arkansas and $0.1 million for Entergy Mississippi.





208

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






InstrumentBalance Sheet LocationGross Fair Value (a)Offsetting Position (b)Net Fair Value (c) (d)Registrant
2019  
Assets:   
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther deferred debits and other assets$0.8$0$0.8Entergy Louisiana
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$3.4($0.1)$3.3Entergy Arkansas
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$4.5$0$4.5Entergy Louisiana
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$0.8$0$0.8Entergy Mississippi
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$0.3$0$0.3Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPrepayments and other$1.0($0.1)$0.9Entergy Texas
Liabilities:
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther current liabilities$2.4$0$2.4Entergy Louisiana
Natural gas swaps and optionsOther non-current liabilities$2.2$0$2.2Entergy Louisiana
Natural gas swapsOther current liabilities$2.3$0$2.3Entergy Mississippi
Natural gas swapsOther current liabilities$0.2$0$0.2Entergy New Orleans

(a)Represents the gross amounts of recognized assets/liabilities
(b)Represents the netting of fair value balances with the same counterparty
(c)Represents the net amounts of assets/liabilities presented on the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets
(d)As of December 31, 2020, letters of credit posted with MISO covered financial transmission rights exposure of $0.3 million for Entergy Louisiana, $0.2 million for Entergy Mississippi, $0.2 million for Entergy New Orleans, and $0.5 million for Entergy Texas. As of December 31, 2019, letters of credit posted with MISO covered financial transmission rights exposure of $0.2 million for Entergy Mississippi.
210

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

The effects of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ derivative instruments not designated as hedging instruments on their income statements for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 are as follows:
InstrumentIncome Statement LocationAmount of gain (loss) recorded in the income statementRegistrant
(In Millions)
2020
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale($11.1)(a)Entergy Mississippi
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale($0.8)(a)Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$26.7(b)Entergy Arkansas
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$19.6(b)Entergy Louisiana
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$3.0(b)Entergy Mississippi
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$1.4(b)Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$40.4(b)Entergy Texas
2019
Natural gas swaps and optionsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale($5.3)(a)Entergy Louisiana
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale($7.7)(a)Entergy Mississippi
InstrumentFinancial transmission rightsIncome Statement LocationPurchased powerAmount of gain (loss) recorded in the income statement$22.3(b)RegistrantEntergy Arkansas
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power(In Millions)$46.7(b)Entergy Louisiana
2017Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$6.8(b)Entergy Mississippi
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$2.7(b)Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$15.7(b)Entergy Texas
2018
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale($25.4)$4.4(a)Entergy Louisiana
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale($5.2)$3.2(a)Entergy Mississippi
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale($0.3)$0.2(a)Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$41.725.3(b)Entergy Arkansas
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$45.872.7(b)Entergy Louisiana
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$18.926.3(b)Entergy Mississippi
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$9.113.8(b)Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$22.3($6.0)(b)Entergy Texas
2016
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale$8.4(a)Entergy Louisiana
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale$3.1(a)Entergy Mississippi
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale($0.4)(a)Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$23.2(b)Entergy Arkansas
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$69.7(b)Entergy Louisiana
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$16.6(b)Entergy Mississippi
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$4.1(b)Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$10.2(b)Entergy Texas
2015
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale��($33.2)(a)Entergy Louisiana
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale($6.1)(a)Entergy Mississippi
Natural gas swapsFuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale($1.4)(a)Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$68.7(b)Entergy Arkansas
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$55.4(b)Entergy Louisiana
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$16.5(b)Entergy Mississippi
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$8.5(b)Entergy New Orleans
Financial transmission rightsPurchased power$16.8(b)Entergy Texas

209211

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






(a)Due to regulatory treatment, the natural gas swaps and options are marked-to-market through fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale and then such amounts are simultaneously reversed and recorded as an offsetting regulatory asset or liability.  The gains or losses recorded as fuel expenses when the swaps and options are settled are recovered or refunded through fuel cost recovery mechanisms.
(a)Due to regulatory treatment, the natural gas swaps are marked-to-market through fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale and then such amounts are simultaneously reversed and recorded as an offsetting regulatory asset or liability.  The gains or losses recorded as fuel expenses when the swaps are settled are recovered or refunded through fuel cost recovery mechanisms.
(b)Due to regulatory treatment, the changes in the estimated fair value of financial transmission rights for the Utility operating companies are recorded through purchased power expense and then such amounts are simultaneously reversed and recorded as an offsetting regulatory asset or liability.  The gains or losses recorded as purchased power expense when the financial transmission rights for the Utility operating companies are settled are recovered or refunded through fuel cost recovery mechanisms.


(b)Due to regulatory treatment, the changes in the estimated fair value of financial transmission rights for the Utility operating companies are recorded through purchased power expense and then such amounts are simultaneously reversed and recorded as an offsetting regulatory asset or liability.  The gains or losses recorded as purchased power expense when the financial transmission rights for the Utility operating companies are settled are recovered or refunded through fuel cost recovery mechanisms.

Fair Values


The estimated fair values of Entergy’s financial instruments and derivatives are determined using historical prices, bid prices, market quotes, and financial modeling.  Considerable judgment is required in developing the estimates of fair value.  Therefore, estimates are not necessarily indicative of the amounts that Entergy could realize in a current market exchange.  Gains or losses realized on financial instruments other than those instruments held by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are reflected in future rates and therefore do not affect net income. Entergy considers the carrying amounts of most financial instruments classified as current assets and liabilities to be a reasonable estimate of their fair value because of the short maturity of these instruments.


Accounting standards define fair value as an exit price, or the price that would be received to sell an asset or the amount that would be paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between knowledgeable market participants at the date of measurement.  Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries use assumptions or market input data that market participants would use in pricing assets or liabilities at fair value.  The inputs can be readily observable, corroborated by market data, or generally unobservable.  Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries endeavor to use the best available information to determine fair value.


Accounting standards establish a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value.  The hierarchy establishes the highest priority for unadjusted market quotes in an active market for the identical asset or liability and the lowest priority for unobservable inputs.  


The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are:


Level 1 - Level 1 inputs are unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the entity has the ability to access at the measurement date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis.  Level 1 primarily consists of individually owned common stocks, cash equivalents (temporary cash investments, securitization recovery trust account, and escrow accounts), debt instruments, and gas hedge contracts.swaps traded on exchanges with active markets.  Cash equivalents includes all unrestricted highly liquid debt instruments with an original or remaining maturity of three months or less at the date of purchase.


Level 2 - Level 2 inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are, either directly or indirectly, observable for the asset or liability at the measurement date.  Assets are valued based on prices derived by independent third parties that use inputs such as benchmark yields, reported trades, broker/dealer quotes, and issuer spreads.  Prices are reviewed and can be challenged with the independent parties and/or overridden by Entergy if it is believed such would be more reflective of fair value.  Level 2 inputs include the following:


quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets;
quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in inactive markets;
inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability; or

quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets;
quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in inactive markets;
210
212

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability; or
inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means.

inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means.

Level 2 consists primarily of individually-owned debt instruments.instruments and gas swaps and options valued using observable inputs.


Level 3 - Level 3 inputs are pricing inputs that are generally less observable or unobservable from objective sources.  These inputs are used with internally developed methodologies to produce management’s best estimate of fair value for the asset or liability.  Level 3 consists primarily of financial transmission rights and derivative power contracts used as cash flow hedges of power sales at merchant power plants.


The values for power contract assets or liabilities are based on both observable inputs including public market prices and interest rates, and unobservable inputs such as implied volatilities, unit contingent discounts, expected basis differences, and credit adjusted counterparty interest rates.  They are classified as Level 3 assets and liabilities.  The valuations of these assets and liabilities are performed by the Business UnitOffice of Corporate Risk Control groupOversight and the Accounting Policy and Entergy Wholesale Commodities Accounting group.  The primary related functions of the Business UnitOffice of Corporate Risk Control groupOversight include: gathering, validating and reporting market data, providing market risk analyses and valuations in support of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ commercial transactions, developing and administering protocols for the management of market risks, and implementing and maintaining controls around changes to market data in the energy trading and risk management system.  The Business UnitOffice of Corporate Risk Control groupOversight is also responsible for managing the energy trading and risk management system, forecasting revenues, forward positions and analysis.  The Accounting Policy and Entergy Wholesale Commodities Accounting group performs functions related to market and counterparty settlements, revenue reporting and analysis, and financial accounting. The Business UnitOffice of Corporate Risk Control groupOversight reports to the Vice President and Treasurer while the Accounting Policy and Entergy Wholesale Commodities Accounting group reports to the Chief Accounting Officer.


The amounts reflected as the fair value of electricity swaps are based on the estimated amount that the contracts are in-the-money at the balance sheet date (treated as an asset) or out-of-the-money at the balance sheet date (treated as a liability) and would equal the estimated amount receivable to or payable by Entergy if the contracts were settled at that date.  These derivative contracts include cash flow hedges that swap fixed for floating cash flows for sales of the output from the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.  The fair values are based on the mark-to-market comparison between the fixed contract prices and the floating prices determined each period from quoted forward power market prices.  The differences between the fixed price in the swap contract and these market-related prices multiplied by the volume specified in the contract and discounted at the counterparties’ credit adjusted risk free rate are recorded as derivative contract assets or liabilities.  For contracts that have unit contingent terms, a further discount is applied based on the historical relationship between contract and market prices for similar contract terms.


The amounts reflected as the fair values of electricity options are valued based on a Black Scholes model, and are calculated at the end of each month for accounting purposes.  Inputs to the valuation include end of day forward market prices for the period when the transactions will settle, implied volatilities based on market volatilities provided by a third partythird-party data aggregator, and U.S. Treasury rates for a risk-free return rate.  As described further below, prices and implied volatilities are reviewed and can be adjusted if it is determined that there is a better representation of fair value.  


On a daily basis, the Business UnitOffice of Corporate Risk Control groupOversight calculates the mark-to-market for electricity swaps and options.  The Business UnitOffice of Corporate Risk Control groupOversight also validates forward market prices by comparing them to other sources of forward market prices or to settlement prices of actual market transactions.  Significant differences are analyzed and potentially adjusted based on these other sources of forward market prices or settlement prices of actual market transactions.  Implied volatilities used to value options are also validated using actual counterparty quotes for Entergy Wholesale Commodities transactions when available and compared with other sources of market
213

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




implied volatilities.  Moreover, on at least a monthlyquarterly basis, the Office of Corporate Risk Oversight confirms the mark-to-market calculations and prepares price scenarios and credit downgrade scenario analysis.  The scenario analysis is communicated to senior management within Entergy and within Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  Finally, for all

211

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


proposed derivative transactions, an analysis is completed to assess the risk of adding the proposed derivative to Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ portfolio.  In particular, the credit and liquidity effects are calculated for this analysis.  This analysis is communicated to senior management within Entergy and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.


The values of financial transmission rights are based on unobservable inputs, including estimates of congestion costs in MISO between applicable generation and load pricing nodes based on the 50th percentile of historical prices.  They are classified as Level 3 assets and liabilities.  The valuations of these assets and liabilities are performed by the Business UnitOffice of Corporate Risk Control group.Oversight.  The values are calculated internally and verified against the data published by MISO. Entergy’s Accounting Policy and Entergy Wholesale Commodities Accounting group reviewsreview these valuations for reasonableness, with the assistance of others within the organization with knowledge of the various inputs and assumptions used in the valuation. The Business UnitOffice of Corporate Risk Control groups reportOversight reports to the Vice President and Treasurer.  The Accounting Policy and Entergy Wholesale Commodities Accounting group reports to the Chief Accounting Officer.


The following tables set forth, by level within the fair value hierarchy, Entergy’s assets and liabilities that are accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 20172020 and December 31, 2016.2019.  The assessment of the significance of a particular input to a fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.


2020Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Temporary cash investments$1,630 $0 $0 $1,630 
Decommissioning trust funds (a):
Equity securities1,533 1,533 
Debt securities (b)919 1,698 2,617 
Common trusts (c)3,103 
Power contracts38 38 
Securitization recovery trust account42 42 
Escrow accounts148 148 
Gas hedge contracts
Financial transmission rights
$4,273 $1,699 $47 $9,122 
Liabilities:
Gas hedge contracts$6 $1 $0 $7 




214
2017 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Temporary cash investments 
$725
 
$—
 
$—
 
$725
Decommissioning trust funds (a):        
Equity securities 526
 
 
 526
Debt securities 1,125
 1,425
 
 2,550
Common trusts (b)       4,136
Power contracts 
 
 5
 5
Securitization recovery trust account 45
 
 
 45
Escrow accounts 406
 
 
 406
Financial transmission rights 
 
 21
 21
  
$2,827
 
$1,425
 
$26
 
$8,414
Liabilities:        
Power contracts 
$—
 
$—
 
$70
 
$70
Gas hedge contracts 6
 
 
 6
  
$6
 
$—
 
$70
 
$76





212

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



2019Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Temporary cash investments$391 $0 $0 $391 
Decommissioning trust funds (a):
Equity securities905 905 
Debt securities1,139 1,824 2,963 
Common trusts (c)2,536 
Power contracts118 118 
Securitization recovery trust account47 47 
Escrow accounts459 459 
Gas hedge contracts
Financial transmission rights10 10 
$2,941 $1,825 $128 $7,430 
Liabilities:
Gas hedge contracts$5 $2 $0 $7 

2016 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Temporary cash investments 
$1,058
 
$—
 
$—
 
$1,058
Decommissioning trust funds (a):        
Equity securities 480
 
 
 480
Debt securities 985
 1,228
 
 2,213
Common trusts (b)       3,031
Power contracts 
 
 16
 16
Securitization recovery trust account 46
 
 
 46
Escrow accounts 433
 
 
 433
Gas hedge contracts 13
 
 
 13
Financial transmission rights 
 
 21
 21
  
$3,015
 
$1,228
 
$37
 
$7,311
Liabilities:        
Power contracts 
$—
 
$—
 
$11
 
$11
(a)The decommissioning trust funds hold equity and fixed income securities. Equity securities are invested to approximate the returns of major market indices.  Fixed income securities are held in various governmental and corporate securities.  See Note 16 to the financial statements herein for additional information on the investment portfolios.

(b)The decommissioning trust funds fair value presented herein does not include the recognition of a credit loss valuation allowance of $0.1 million on debt securities due to the adoption of ASU 2016-13. See Note 16 to the financial statements herein for additional information on the allowance for expected credit losses.
(a)The decommissioning trust funds hold equity and fixed income securities. Equity securities are invested to approximate the returns of major market indices.  Fixed income securities are held in various governmental and corporate securities.  See Note 9 to the financial statements for additional information on the investment portfolios.
(b)Common trust funds are not publicly quoted, and are valued by the fund administrators using net asset value as a practical expedient. Accordingly, these funds are not assigned a level in the fair value table. The fund administrator of these investments allows daily trading at the net asset value and trades settle at a later date.

(c)Common trust funds are not publicly quoted and are valued by the fund administrators using net asset value as a practical expedient. Accordingly, these funds are not assigned a level in the fair value table. The fund administrator of these investments allows daily trading at the net asset value and trades settle at a later date.

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of changes in the net assets (liabilities) for the fair value of derivatives classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015:2018:
 202020192018
Power ContractsFinancial transmission rightsPower ContractsFinancial transmission rightsPower ContractsFinancial transmission rights
 (In Millions)
Balance as of January 1,$118 $10 ($31)$15 ($65)$21 
Total gains (losses) for the period (a)
Included in earnings12 (1)
Included in other comprehensive income77 232 (40)
Included as a regulatory liability/asset67 54 80 
Issuances of financial transmission rights23 35 46 
Settlements(158)(92)(95)(94)72 (131)
Balance as of December 31,$38 $9 $118 $10 ($31)$15 

215
 2017 2016 2015
 Power ContractsFinancial transmission rights Power ContractsFinancial transmission rights Power ContractsFinancial transmission rights
 (In Millions)
Balance as of January 1,
$5

$21
 
$189

$23
 
$215

$47
Total gains (losses) for the period (a)        
Included in earnings(3)1
 (10)
 (20)(1)
Included in other comprehensive income44

 135

 254

Included as a regulatory liability/asset
76
 
68
 
63
Issuances of financial transmission rights
62
 
55
 
80
Purchases

 

 15

Settlements(111)(139) (309)(125) (275)(166)
Balance as of December 31,
($65)
$21
 
$5

$21
 
$189

$23

(a)Change in unrealized gains or losses for the period included in earnings for derivatives held at the end of the reporting period is $0.9 million, $0.2 million, and $3 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively.

213

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






(a)    Change in unrealized gains or losses for the period included in earnings for derivatives held at the end of the reporting period is ($0.3) million, ($9.2) million, and ($3.5) million for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018, respectively.

The following table sets forth a description of the types of transactions classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy and significant unobservable inputs to each which cause that classification, as of December 31, 2017:2020:
Transaction TypeFair Value as of December 31, 2020Significant Unobservable InputsRange from Average %Effect on Fair Value
 (In Millions)  (In Millions)
Power contracts - electricity swaps$38Unit contingent discount4.75%$4
Transaction TypeFair Value as of December 31, 2017Significant Unobservable InputsRange from Average %Effect on Fair Value
(In Millions)(In Millions)
Power contracts - electricity swaps($65)Unit contingent discount+/- 4% - 4.75%$6 - $7

The values of financial transmission rights are based on unobservable inputs calculated internally and verified against historical pricing data published by MISO.

The following table sets forth an analysis of each of the types of unobservable inputs impacting the fair value of items classified as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy, and the sensitivity to changes to those inputs:
Significant Unobservable InputTransaction TypePositionChange to InputEffect on Fair Value
Unit contingent discountElectricity swapsSellIncrease (Decrease)Decrease (Increase)
Significant Unobservable InputTransaction TypePositionChange to InputEffect on Fair Value
Unit contingent discountElectricity swapsSellIncrease (Decrease)Decrease (Increase)


The following table sets forth, by level within the fair value hierarchy, the Registrant Subsidiaries’ assets and liabilities that are accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 20172020 and December 31, 2016.2019.  The assessment of the significance of a particular input to a fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect its placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.

Entergy Arkansas


216
2017 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Decommissioning trust funds (a):        
Equity securities 
$11.7
 
$—
 
$—
 
$11.7
Debt securities 115.8
 232.4
 
 348.2
Common trusts (b)       585.0
Securitization recovery trust account 3.7
 
 
 3.7
Escrow accounts 2.4
 
 
 2.4
Financial transmission rights 
 
 3.0
 3.0
  
$133.6
 
$232.4
 
$3.0
 
$954.0

2016 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Decommissioning trust funds (a):        
Equity securities 
$3.6
 
$—
 
$—
 
$3.6
Debt securities 112.5
 196.8
 
 309.3
Common trusts (b)       521.8
Securitization recovery trust account 4.1
 
 
 4.1
Escrow accounts 7.1
 
 
 7.1
Financial transmission rights 
 
 5.4
 5.4
  
$127.3
 
$196.8
 
$5.4
 
$851.3

214

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Entergy Arkansas
2020Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Temporary cash investments$168.0 $0 $0 $168.0 
Decommissioning trust funds (a):
Equity securities1.3 1.3 
Debt securities98.2 349.7 447.9 
Common trusts (b)824.7 
Financial transmission rights2.7 2.7 
$267.5 $349.7 $2.7 $1,444.6 

2019Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Decommissioning trust funds (a):
Equity securities$0.6 $0 $0 $0.6 
Debt securities108.7 304.1 412.8 
Common trusts (b)687.9 
Securitization recovery trust account4.0 4.0 
Financial transmission rights3.3 3.3 
$113.3 $304.1 $3.3 $1,108.6 

Entergy Louisiana

2020Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Temporary cash investments$726.7 $0 $0 $726.7 
Decommissioning trust funds (a):
Equity securities8.7 8.7 
Debt securities172.4 459.8 632.2 
Common trusts (b)1,153.1 
Securitization recovery trust account2.7 2.7 
Gas hedge contracts0.8 0.5 1.3 
Financial transmission rights4.2 4.2 
$911.3 $460.3 $4.2 $2,528.9 
Liabilities:
Gas hedge contracts$0.3 $1.3 $0 $1.6 
217
2017 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Temporary cash investments 
$30.1
 
$—
 
$—
 
$30.1
Decommissioning trust funds (a):        
Equity securities 15.2
 
 
 15.2
Debt securities 143.3
 350.5
 
 493.8
Common trusts (b)       803.1
Escrow accounts 289.5
 
 
 289.5
Securitization recovery trust account 2.0
 
 
 2.0
Financial transmission rights 
 
 10.2
 10.2
  
$480.1
 
$350.5
 
$10.2
 
$1,643.9
Liabilities:        
Gas hedge contracts 
$5.0
 
$—
 
$—
 
$5.0

2016 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Temporary cash investments 
$163.9
 
$—
 
$—
 
$163.9
Decommissioning trust funds (a):        
Equity securities 13.9
 
 
 13.9
Debt securities 132.3
 292.5
 
 424.8
Common trusts (b)       702.0
Escrow accounts 305.7
 
 
 305.7
Securitization recovery trust account 2.8
 
 
 2.8
Gas hedge contracts 10.9
 
 
 10.9
Financial transmission rights 
 
 8.5
 8.5
  
$629.5
 
$292.5
 
$8.5
 
$1,632.5

Entergy Mississippi
2017 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Temporary cash investments 
$4.5
 
$—
 
$—
 
$4.5
Escrow accounts 32.0
 
 
 32.0
Financial transmission rights 
 
 2.1
 2.1
  
$36.5
 
$—
 
$2.1
 
$38.6
Liabilities:        
Gas hedge contracts 
$1.2
 
$—
 
$—
 
$1.2


215

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements







2019Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Temporary cash investments$1.5 $0 $0 $1.5 
Decommissioning trust funds (a):
Equity securities4.3 4.3 
Debt securities180.8 420.7 601.5 
Common trusts (b)958.0 
Escrow accounts295.9 295.9 
Securitization recovery trust account3.7 3.7 
Gas hedge contracts0.8 0.8 
Financial transmission rights4.5 4.5 
$486.2 $421.5 $4.5 $1,870.2 
Liabilities:
Gas hedge contracts$2.4 $2.2 $0 $4.6 
2016 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Temporary cash investments 
$76.8
 
$—
 
$—
 
$76.8
Escrow accounts 31.8
 
 
 31.8
Gas hedge contracts 2.3
 
 
 2.3
Financial transmission rights 
 
 3.2
 3.2
  
$110.9
 
$—
 
$3.2
 
$114.1


Entergy New OrleansMississippi

2020Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Escrow accounts$64.6 $0 $0 $64.6 
Financial transmission rights0.6 0.6 
$64.6 $0 $0.6 $65.2 
Liabilities:
Gas hedge contracts$5.0 $0 $0 $5.0 

2019Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Temporary cash investments$51.6 $0 $0 $51.6 
Escrow accounts80.2 80.2 
Financial transmission rights0.8 0.8 
$131.8 $0 $0.8 $132.6 
Liabilities:
Gas hedge contracts$2.3 $0 $0 $2.3 

218
2017 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Temporary cash investments 
$32.7
 
$—
 
$—
 
$32.7
Securitization recovery trust account 1.5
 
 
 1.5
Escrow accounts 81.9
 
 
 81.9
Financial transmission rights 
 
 2.2
 2.2
  
$116.1
 
$—
 
$2.2
 
$118.3
Liabilities:        
Gas hedge contracts 
$0.2
 
$—
 
$—
 
$0.2

2016 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Temporary cash investments 
$103.0
 
$—
 
$—
 
$103.0
Securitization recovery trust account 1.7
 
 
 1.7
Escrow accounts 88.6
 
 
 88.6
Gas hedge contracts 0.2
 
 
 0.2
Financial transmission rights 
 
 1.1
 1.1
  
$193.5
 
$—
 
$1.1
 
$194.6

Entergy Texas

2017 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:
        
Temporary cash investments 
$115.5
 
$—
 
$—
 
$115.5
Securitization recovery trust account 37.7
 
 
 37.7
Financial transmission rights 
 
 3.4
 3.4
  
$153.2
 
$—
 
$3.4
 
$156.6


216

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Entergy New Orleans
2020Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Securitization recovery trust account$3.4 $0 $0 $3.4 
Escrow accounts83.0 83.0 
Financial transmission rights0.1 0.1 
$86.4 $0 $0.1 $86.5 
Liabilities:
Gas hedge contracts$0.3 $0 $0 $0.3 

2019Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Temporary cash investments$6.0 $0 $0 $6.0 
Securitization recovery trust account2.0 2.0 
Escrow accounts82.6 82.6 
Financial transmission rights0.3 0.3 
$90.6 $0 $0.3 $90.9 
Liabilities:
Gas hedge contracts$0.2 $0 $0 $0.2 

Entergy Texas
2020Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Temporary cash investments$248.6 $0 $0 $248.6 
Securitization recovery trust account36.2 36.2 
Financial transmission rights1.6 1.6 
$284.8 $0 $1.6 $286.4 

2019Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Temporary cash investments$12.9 $0 $0 $12.9 
Securitization recovery trust account37.7 37.7 
Financial transmission rights0.9 0.9 
$50.6 $0 $0.9 $51.5 

219
2016 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:
        
Temporary cash investments 
$5.0
 
$—
 
$—
 
$5.0
Securitization recovery trust account 37.5
 
 
 37.5
Financial transmission rights 
 
 3.1
 3.1
  
$42.5
 
$—
 
$3.1
 
$45.6

System Energy

2017 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Temporary cash investments 
$287.1
 
$—
 
$—
 
$287.1
Decommissioning trust funds (a):        
Equity securities 3.1
 
 
 3.1
Debt securities 187.2
 143.3
 
 330.5
Common trusts (b)       572.1
  
$477.4
 
$143.3
 
$—
 
$1,192.8

2016 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
  (In Millions)
Assets:        
Temporary cash investments 
$245.1
 
$—
 
$—
 
$245.1
Decommissioning trust funds (a):        
Equity securities 0.3
 
 
 0.3
Debt securities 248.3
 58.3
 
 306.6
Common trusts (b)       473.6
  
$493.7
 
$58.3
 
$—
 
$1,025.6

(a)The decommissioning trust funds hold equity and fixed income securities. Equity securities are invested to approximate the returns of major market indices.  Fixed income securities are held in various governmental and corporate securities.  See Note 9 to the financial statements for additional information on the investment portfolios.
(b)Common trust funds are not publicly quoted, and are valued by the fund administrators using net asset value as a practical expedient. Accordingly, these funds are not assigned a level in the fair value table. The fund administrator of these investments allows daily trading at the net asset value and trades settle at a later date.


217

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






System Energy
2020Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Temporary cash investments$216.4 $0 $0 $216.4 
Decommissioning trust funds (a):
Equity securities3.8 3.8 
Debt securities177.3 250.4 427.7 
Common trusts (b)784.4 
$397.5 $250.4 $0 $1,432.3 

2019Level 1Level 2Level 3Total
(In Millions)
Assets:
Temporary cash investments$68.4 $0 $0 $68.4 
Decommissioning trust funds (a):
Equity securities13.3 13.3 
Debt securities176.3 209.9 386.2 
Common trusts (b)654.6 
$258.0 $209.9 $0 $1,122.5 

(a)The decommissioning trust funds hold equity and fixed income securities. Equity securities are invested to approximate the returns of major market indices.  Fixed income securities are held in various governmental and corporate securities.  See Note 16 to the financial statements herein for additional information on the investment portfolios.
(b)Common trust funds are not publicly quoted and are valued by the fund administrators using net asset value as a practical expedient. Accordingly, these funds are not assigned a level in the fair value table. The fund administrator of these investments allows daily trading at the net asset value and trades settle at a later date.

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of changes in the net assets for the fair value of derivatives classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the year ended December 31, 2020.
Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
 (In Millions)
Balance as of January 1, 2020$3.3 $4.5 $0.8 $0.3 $0.9 
Issuances of financial transmission rights6.5 13.2 1.4 (0.1)2.4 
Gains (losses) included as a regulatory liability/asset19.6 6.1 1.4 1.3 38.7 
Settlements(26.7)(19.6)(3.0)(1.4)(40.4)
Balance as of December 31, 2020$2.7 $4.2 $0.6 $0.1 $1.6 

220

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of changes in the net assets (liabilities) for the fair value of derivatives classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the year ended December 31, 2017.2019.
Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy Texas
 (In Millions)
Balance as of January 1, 2019$3.4 $8.3 $2.2 $1.3 ($0.5)
Issuances of financial transmission rights9.6 18.7 3.9 2.7 0.1 
Gains (losses) included as a regulatory liability/asset12.6 24.2 1.5 (1.0)17.0 
Settlements(22.3)(46.7)(6.8)(2.7)(15.7)
Balance as of December 31, 2019$3.3 $4.5 $0.8 $0.3 $0.9 

Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana
Entergy Mississippi
Entergy New Orleans
Entergy Texas
 (In Millions)

  










Balance as of January 1,
$5.4
 
$8.5
 
$3.2
 
$1.1
 
$3.1
Issuances of financial transmission rights8.9
 31.0
 9.6
 5.0
 7.1
Gains (losses) included as a regulatory liability/asset30.4
 16.5
 8.2
 5.2
 15.5
Settlements(41.7) (45.8) (18.9) (9.1) (22.3)
Balance as of December 31,
$3.0
 
$10.2
 
$2.1
 
$2.2
 
$3.4



The following table sets forth a reconciliation of changes in the net assets (liabilities) for the fair value of derivatives classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the year ended December 31, 2016.
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas
 (In Millions)
          
Balance as of January 1,
$7.9
 
$8.5
 
$2.4
 
$1.5
 
$2.2
Issuances of financial transmission rights18.8
 18.1
 5.9
 2.8
 9.3
Gains included as a regulatory liability/asset1.9
 51.6
 11.5
 0.9
 1.8
Settlements(23.2) (69.7) (16.6) (4.1) (10.2)
Balance as of December 31,
$5.4
 
$8.5
 
$3.2
 
$1.1
 
$3.1


NOTE 16.    DECOMMISSIONING TRUST FUNDS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy)


Entergy holds debt and equity securities, classified as available-for-sale, in nuclear decommissioning trust accounts.  The NRC requires Entergy subsidiaries to maintain nuclear decommissioning trusts to fund the costs of decommissioning ANO 1, ANO 2, River Bend, Waterford 3, Grand Gulf, Pilgrim, Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, Vermont Yankee, and Palisades. TheEntergy’s nuclear decommissioning trust funds are invested primarilyinvest in equity securities, fixed-rate debt securities, and cash and cash equivalents.

For the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants purchased in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust funds and the decommissioning liabilities. NYPA and Entergy subsidiaries executed decommissioning agreements, which specified their decommissioning obligations. At the time of the acquisition of the plants Entergy recorded a contract asset that represented an estimate of the present value of the difference between the stipulated contract amount for decommissioning the plants less the decommissioning costs estimated in independent decommissioning cost studies.

In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy. The transaction

218

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


was contingent upon receiving approval from the NRC, which was received in January 2017.  As a result of the agreement with NYPA, in the third quarter 2016, Entergy removed the contract asset from its balance sheet, and recorded receivables for the beneficial interests in the decommissioning trust funds and recorded asset retirement obligations for the decommissioning liabilities. At December 31, 2016, the fair values of the decommissioning trust funds held by NYPA were $719 million for the Indian Point 3 plant and $785 million for the FitzPatrick plant. The fair values were based on the trust statements received from NYPA and were valued by the fund administrator using net asset value as a practical expedient. Accordingly, these funds were not assigned a level in the fair value hierarchy. For Indian Point 3, the receivable for the beneficial interest in the decommissioning trust fund was recorded in other deferred debits on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. For FitzPatrick, the receivable for the beneficial interest in the decommissioning trust fund was classified as held for sale within other deferred debits on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. In January 2017, NYPA transferred to Entergy the Indian Point 3 decommissioning trust funds with a fair value of $726 million and the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund with a fair value of $793 million. In March 2017, Entergy closed on the sale of the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon. As part of the transaction, Entergy transferred the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund to Exelon. The FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund had a disposition-date fair value of $805 million. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of the decommissioning agreements with NYPA and see Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale of FitzPatrick.


Entergy records decommissioning trust funds on the balance sheet at their fair value.  Because of the ability of the Registrant Subsidiaries to recover decommissioning costs in rates and in accordance with the regulatory treatment for decommissioning trust funds, the Registrant Subsidiaries have recorded an offsetting amount of unrealized gains/(losses) on investment securities in other regulatory liabilities/assets.  For the 30% interest in River Bend formerly owned by Cajun, Entergy Louisiana records an offsetting amount in other deferred credits for the excessunrealized trust earnings not currently expected to be needed to decommission the plant.  Decommissioning trust funds for Pilgrim, Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, Vermont Yankee, and Palisadesthe Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants do not meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment.  Accordingly, unrealized gains/(losses) recorded on the equity securities in the trust funds are recognized in earnings. Unrealized gains recorded on the assetsavailable-for-sale debt securities in thesethe trust funds are recognized in the accumulated other comprehensive income component of shareholders’ equity because these assets are classified as available for sale.equity.  Unrealized losses (where cost exceeds fair market value) on the assetsavailable-for-sale debt securities in thesethe trust funds are also recorded in the accumulated other comprehensive income component of shareholders’ equity unless the unrealized loss is other than temporary and therefore recorded in earnings. A portion of Entergy’s decommissioning trust funds were held in a wholly-owned registered investment company, and unrealized gains and losses on both the equity and debt securities held in the registered investment company were recognized in earnings. In December 2020, Entergy liquidated its interest in the registered investment company. Generally, Entergy records realized gains and losses on its debt and equity securities using the specific identification method to determine the cost basis of its securities.


The unrealized gains/(losses) recognized during the year ended December 31, 2020 on equity securities still held as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 are summarized as follows:
  2017 2016
  Fair Value Total Unrealized Gains Total Unrealized Losses Fair Value Total Unrealized Gains Total Unrealized Losses
  (In Millions)
Equity Securities 
$4,662
 
$2,131
 
$1
 
$3,511
 
$1,673
 
$1
Debt Securities 2,550
 44
 16
 2,213
 34
 27
Total 
$7,212
 
$2,175
 
$17
 
$5,724
 
$1,707
 
$28

The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds related to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants as of December 31, 2017 are $491 million for Indian Point 1, $621 million for Indian Point 2, $798 million for Indian Point 3, $458 million for Palisades, $1,068 million for Pilgrim, and $613 million for Vermont Yankee. The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds related to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants as of December 31, 2016 are $443 million for Indian Point 1, $564 million for Indian Point 2, $412 million for Palisades, $960 million for Pilgrim, and $584 million for Vermont Yankee. The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds for the Registrant Subsidiaries’ nuclear plants are detailed below.

219

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


Deferred taxes on unrealized gains/(losses) are recorded in other comprehensive income (loss) for the decommissioning trusts which do not meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment as described above. Unrealized gains/(losses) above are reported before deferred taxes of $479 million and $399 million as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.  The amortized cost of debt securities was $2,539 million as of December 31, 2017 and $2,212 million as of December 31, 2016.  As of December 31, 2017, the debt securities have an average coupon rate of approximately 3.24%, an average duration of approximately 6.33 years, and an average maturity of approximately 9.99 years.2020 were $531 million. The equity securities are generally held in funds that are designed to approximate or somewhat exceed the return of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. A relatively small percentage of the equity securities are held in funds intended to replicate the return of the Wilshire 4500 Indexindex or the Russell 3000 Index. The debt securities are generally held in individual government and credit issuances.


221

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




The available-for-sale securities held as of December 31, 2020 and 2019 are summarized as follows:
 Fair ValueTotal Unrealized GainsTotal Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
2020
Debt Securities (a)$2,617 $197 $3 
2019
Debt Securities (a)$2,456 $96 $6 

(a)    Debt securities presented herein do not include the $507 million of debt securities held in the wholly-owned registered investment company as of December 31, 2019, which are not accounted for as available-for-sale.

The unrealized gains/(losses) above are reported before deferred taxes of $31 million as of December 31, 2020 and $13 million as of December 31, 2019 for debt securities. The amortized cost of available-for-sale debt securities was $2,423 million as of December 31, 2020 and $2,366 million as of December 31, 2019.  As of December 31, 2020, available-for-sale debt securities have an average coupon rate of approximately 3.01%, an average duration of approximately 7.36 years, and an average maturity of approximately 10.72 years.

The fair value and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale equity and debt securities, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, 20172020:
Fair ValueGross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months$187 $3 
More than 12 months
Total$189 $3 

The fair value and 2016:gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt securities, summarized by length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, 2019:
 Fair ValueGross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months$404 $5 
More than 12 months38 
Total$442 $6 

222

 2017 2016
 Equity Securities Debt Securities Equity Securities Debt Securities
 Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months
$8
 
$1
 
$1,099
 
$7
 
$23
 
$1
 
$1,169
 
$26
More than 12 months
 
 265
 9
 1
 
 20
 1
Total
$8
 
$1
 
$1,364
 
$16
 
$24
 
$1
 
$1,189
 
$27

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

The fair value of available-for-sale debt securities, summarized by contractual maturities, as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are as follows:
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Less than 1 year($4)$128 
1 year - 5 years672 807 
5 years - 10 years852 666 
10 years - 15 years377 125 
15 years - 20 years144 126 
20 years+576 604 
Total$2,617 $2,456 
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
less than 1 year
$74
 
$125
1 year - 5 years902
 763
5 years - 10 years812
 719
10 years - 15 years147
 109
15 years - 20 years100
 73
20 years+515
 424
Total
$2,550
 
$2,213


During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, proceeds from the dispositions of available-for-sale securities amounted to $3,163$1,024 million, $2,409$1,427 million, and $2,492$2,406 million, respectively.  During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, gross gains of $149$47 million, $32$25 million, and $72$7 million, respectively, and gross losses of $13$4 million, $13$4 million, and $13$47 million, respectively, related to available-for-sale securities were reclassified out of other comprehensive income or other regulatory liabilities/assets into earnings.



The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds related to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants as of December 31, 2020 are $631 million for Indian Point 1, $794 million for Indian Point 2, $991 million for Indian Point 3, and $554 million for Palisades. The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds related to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants as of December 31, 2019 are $556 million for Indian Point 1, $701 million for Indian Point 2, $930 million for Indian Point 3, and $498 million for Palisades. The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds for the Registrant Subsidiaries’ nuclear plants are detailed below.
220

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Entergy Arkansas


Entergy Arkansas holds debt and equity securities classified asand available-for-sale debt securities in nuclear decommissioning trust accounts.  The available-for-sale securities held as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are summarized as follows:
 Fair ValueTotal Unrealized GainsTotal Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
2020
Debt Securities$447.9 $27.7 $0.3 
2019
Debt Securities$412.8 $9.9 $2.6 
  2017 2016
  Fair Value Total Unrealized Gains Total Unrealized Losses Fair Value Total Unrealized Gains Total Unrealized Losses
  (In Millions)
Equity Securities 
$596.7
 
$354.9
 
$—
 
$525.4
 
$281.5
 
$—
Debt Securities 348.2
 2.1
 3.0
 309.3
 3.4
 4.2
Total 
$944.9
 
$357.0
 
$3.0
 
$834.7
 
$284.9
 
$4.2


The amortized cost of available-for-sale debt securities was $349.1$420.4 million as of December 31, 20172020 and $310.1$405.4 million as of December 31, 2016.2019.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, the available-for-sale debt securities have an average coupon rate of approximately 2.64%2.57%, an average duration of approximately 5.616.97 years, and an average maturity of approximately 7.008.24 years.

The unrealized gains/(losses) recognized during the year ended December 31, 2020 on equity securities still held as of December 31, 2020 were $116.8 million. The equity securities are generally held in funds that are designed to approximate the return of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.  A relatively small percentage of the equity securities are held in funds intended to replicate the return of the Wilshire 4500 Index.


223

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




The fair value and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale equity and debt securities, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, 20172020:
 Fair ValueGross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months$29.9 $0.3 
More than 12 months
Total$29.9 $0.3 

The fair value and 2016:gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt securities, summarized by length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, 2019:
 Fair ValueGross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months$104.8 $2.5 
More than 12 months7.7 0.1 
Total$112.5 $2.6 
 2017 2016
 Equity Securities Debt Securities Equity Securities Debt Securities
 Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months
$—
 
$—
 
$168.0
 
$1.2
 
$—
 
$—
 
$146.7
 
$4.2
More than 12 months
 
 41.4
 1.8
 
 
 
 
Total
$—
 
$—
 
$209.4
 
$3.0
 
$—
 
$—
 
$146.7
 
$4.2


The fair value of available-for-sale debt securities, summarized by contractual maturities, as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are as follows:
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Less than 1 year$0 $44.1 
1 year - 5 years113.1 109.1 
5 years - 10 years189.8 156.0 
10 years - 15 years81.4 31.3 
15 years - 20 years28.5 23.8 
20 years+35.1 48.5 
Total$447.9 $412.8 
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
less than 1 year
$13.0
 
$16.7
1 year - 5 years123.4
 106.2
5 years - 10 years180.6
 161.2
10 years - 15 years4.8
 7.7
15 years - 20 years3.4
 1.0
20 years+23.0
 16.5
Total
$348.2
 
$309.3


During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, proceeds from the dispositions of available-for-sale securities amounted to $339.4$94.5 million, $197.4$110.6 million, and $213$82.1 million, respectively.  During the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018, gross gains of $8.8 million, $2.9 million, and $0.1 million, respectively, and gross losses of $0.2 million, $0.1 million, and $2.9 million, respectively, related to available-for-sale securities were reclassified out of other regulatory liabilities/assets into earnings.


221
224

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



2017, 2016, and 2015, gross gains of $17.7 million, $1.8 million, and $5.9 million, respectively, and gross losses of $0.6 million, $0.8 million, and $0.3 million, respectively, were recorded in earnings.

Entergy Louisiana


Entergy Louisiana holds debt and equity securities classified asand available-for-sale debt securities in nuclear decommissioning trust accounts.  The available-for-sale securities held as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are summarized as follows:
 Fair ValueTotal Unrealized GainsTotal Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
2020
Debt Securities$632.2 $51.3 $0.5 
2019
Debt Securities$601.5 $29.3 $0.8 
  2017 2016
  Fair Value Total Unrealized Gains Total Unrealized Losses Fair Value Total Unrealized Gains Total Unrealized Losses
  (In Millions)
Equity Securities 
$818.3
 
$461.2
 
$—
 
$715.9
 
$346.6
 
$—
Debt Securities 493.8
 10.9
 3.6
 424.8
 8.0
 5.0
Total 
$1,312.1
 
$472.1
 
$3.6
 
$1,140.7
 
$354.6
 
$5.0


The amortized cost of available-for-sale debt securities was $490$581.4 million as of December 31, 20172020 and $421.9$573 million as of December 31, 2016.2019.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, the available-for-sale debt securities have an average coupon rate of approximately 3.88%3.64%, an average duration of approximately 6.177.25 years, and an average maturity of approximately 12.0612.73 years.

The unrealized gains/(losses) recognized during the year ended December 31, 2020 on equity securities still held as of December 31, 2020 were $163.6 million. The equity securities are generally held in funds that are designed to approximate the return of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.  A relatively small percentage of the equity securities are held in funds intended to replicate the return of the Wilshire 4500 Index.


The fair value and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale equity and debt securities, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, 20172020:
 Fair ValueGross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months$36.4 $0.5 
More than 12 months0.8 
Total$37.2 $0.5 

The fair value and 2016:gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt securities, summarized by length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, 2019:
 Fair ValueGross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months$71.2 $0.8 
More than 12 months7.9 
Total$79.1 $0.8 

225

 2017 2016
 Equity Securities Debt Securities Equity Securities Debt Securities
 Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months
$—
 
$—
 
$135.3
 
$1.1
 
$—
 
$—
 
$198.8
 
$4.8
More than 12 months
 
 84.4
 2.5
 
 
 4.8
 0.2
Total
$—
 
$—
 
$219.7
 
$3.6
 
$—
 
$—
 
$203.6
 
$5.0

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




The fair value of available-for-sale debt securities, summarized by contractual maturities, as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are as follows:
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Less than 1 year$0 $40.7 
1 year - 5 years117.0 142.0 
5 years - 10 years159.4 132.4 
10 years - 15 years101.2 39.8 
15 years - 20 years66.9 49.2 
20 years+187.7 197.4 
Total$632.2 $601.5 
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
less than 1 year
$23.2
 
$31.4
1 year - 5 years122.8
 99.1
5 years - 10 years109.3
 122.8
10 years - 15 years52.7
 41.4
15 years - 20 years50.7
 30.9
20 years+135.1
 99.2
Total
$493.8
 
$424.8


222

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, proceeds from the dispositions of available-for-sale securities amounted to $231.3$159.7 million, $219.2$186 million, and $123.5$401.7 million, respectively.  During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 2015,2018, gross gains of $12$8.1 million, $3.9$4.8 million, and $1.9$2.1 million, respectively, and gross losses of $0.4$0.7 million, $0.4$0.3 million, and $0.3$7.5 million, respectively, related to available-for-sale securities were recorded inreclassified out of other regulatory liabilities/assets into earnings.


System Energy


System Energy holds debt and equity securities classified asand available-for-sale debt securities in nuclear decommissioning trust accounts.  The available-for-sale securities held as of December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 are summarized as follows:
 Fair ValueTotal Unrealized GainsTotal Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
2020
Debt Securities$427.7 $30.0 $0.8 
2019
Debt Securities$386.2 $15.1 $0.3 
  2017 2016
  Fair Value Total Unrealized Gains Total Unrealized Losses Fair Value Total Unrealized Gains Total Unrealized Losses
  (In Millions)
Equity Securities 
$575.2
 
$308.6
 
$—
 
$473.9
 
$221.9
 
$0.1
Debt Securities 330.5
 4.2
 1.2
 306.6
 2.0
 4.5
Total 
$905.7
 
$312.8
 
$1.2
 
$780.5
 
$223.9
 
$4.6


The amortized cost of available-for-sale debt securities was $327.5$398.4 million as of December 31, 20172020 and $309.1$371.4 million as of December 31, 2016.2019.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, the available-for-sale debt securities have an average coupon rate of approximately 2.67%2.74%, an average duration of approximately 6.487.54 years, and an average maturity of approximately 9.2211.09 years.

The unrealized gains/(losses) recognized during the year ended December 31, 2020 on equity securities still held as of December 31, 2020 were $111.1 million. The equity securities are generally held in funds that are designed to approximate the return of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.  A relatively small percentage of the equity securities are held in funds intended to replicate the return of the Wilshire 4500 Index.


226

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

The fair value and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale equity and debt securities, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, 20172020:
 Fair ValueGross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months$28.9 $0.8 
More than 12 months
Total$28.9 $0.8 

The fair value and 2016:gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale debt securities, summarized by length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, 2019:
 Fair ValueGross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months$56.9 $0.3 
More than 12 months0.3 
Total$57.2 $0.3 

The fair value of available-for-sale debt securities, summarized by contractual maturities, as of December 31, 2020 and 2019 are as follows:
 20202019
 (In Millions)
Less than 1 year($1.1)$8.5 
1 year - 5 years134.7 154.6 
5 years - 10 years141.5 92.3 
10 years - 15 years31.5 13.4 
15 years - 20 years5.3 14.4 
20 years+115.8 103.0 
Total$427.7 $386.2 

During the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018, proceeds from the dispositions of available-for-sale securities amounted to $252.2 million, $338.1 million, and $361.9 million, respectively.  During the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018, gross gains of $11.5 million, $5.4 million, and $0.5 million, respectively, and gross losses of $0.6 million, $0.7 million, and $6.1 million, respectively, related to available-for-sale securities were reclassified out of other regulatory liabilities/assets into earnings.

Allowance for expected credit losses

Entergy implemented ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, effective January 1, 2020. In accordance with the new standard, Entergy estimates the expected credit losses for its available for sale securities based on the current credit rating and remaining life of the securities.  To the extent an individual security is determined to be uncollectible it is written off against this allowance.  Entergy’s available-for-sale securities are held in trusts managed by third parties who operate in accordance with agreements that define investment guidelines and place restrictions on the purchases and sales of investments.  Specifically, available-for-sale securities are subject to credit worthiness restrictions, with requirements for both the average credit rating of the portfolio and minimum credit ratings for individual debt
227
 2017 2016
 Equity Securities Debt Securities Equity Securities Debt Securities
 Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses
 (In Millions)
Less than 12 months
$—
 
$—
 
$196.9
 
$1.0
 
$—
 
$—
 
$220.9
 
$4.4
More than 12 months
 
 10.4
 0.2
 
 0.1
 0.8
 0.1
Total
$—
 
$—
 
$207.3
 
$1.2
 
$—
 
$0.1
 
$221.7
 
$4.5


223

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






The fair value of debt securities, summarized by contractual maturities, assecurities.  As of December 31, 2017 and 2016 are as follows:
 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
less than 1 year
$4.1
 
$6.6
1 year - 5 years173.0
 188.2
5 years - 10 years78.5
 78.5
10 years - 15 years1.0
 1.3
15 years - 20 years6.9
 7.8
20 years+67.0
 24.2
Total
$330.5
 
$306.6

During2020, Entergy’s allowance for expected credit losses related to available-for-sale securities was $0.1 million. Entergy did not record any impairments of available-for-sale debt securities for the yearsyear ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, proceeds from the dispositions of securities amounted to $565.4 million, $499.3 million, and $390.4 million, respectively.  During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, gross gains of $1.4 million, $3.5 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, and gross losses of $3.3 million, $1.7 million, and $0.5 million, respectively, were recorded in earnings.2020.


Other-than-temporary impairments and unrealized gains and losses


Prior to the implementation of ASU 2016-13 on January 1, 2020, Entergy evaluates investmentevaluated the available-for-sale debt securities in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’Commodities nuclear decommissioning trust funds with unrealized losses at the end of each period to determine whether an other-than-temporary impairment hashad occurred.  The assessment of whether an investment in a debt security has suffered an other-than-temporary impairment iswas based on whether Entergy hashad the intent to sell or more likely than not will bewould have been required to sell the debt security before recovery of its amortized costs.  Further, if Entergy doesdid not expect to recover the entire amortized cost basis of the debt security, an other-than-temporary impairment iswas considered to have occurred and it iswas measured by the present value of cash flows expected to be collected less the amortized cost basis (credit loss).  Entergy did not have any material other-than-temporary impairments relating to credit losses on debt securities for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2019 and 2015.  The assessment of whether an investment in an equity security has suffered an other-than-temporary impairment is based on a number of factors including, first, whether Entergy has the ability and intent to hold the investment to recover its value, the duration and severity of any losses, and, then, whether it is expected that the investment will recover its value within a reasonable period of time.  Entergy’s trusts are managed by third parties who operate in accordance with agreements that define investment guidelines and place restrictions on the purchases and sales of investments.  Entergy did not record material charges to other income in 2017, 2016, or 2015 resulting from the recognition of the other-than-temporary impairment of equity securities held in its decommissioning trust funds.2018.




NOTE 17.  VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Under applicable authoritative accounting guidance, a variable interest entity (VIE) is an entity that conducts a business or holds property that possesses any of the following characteristics: an insufficient amount of equity at risk to finance its activities, equity owners who do not have the power to direct the significant activities of the entity (or have voting rights that are disproportionate to their ownership interest), or where equity holders do not receive expected losses or returns. An entity may have an interest in a VIE through ownership or other contractual rights or obligations, and is required to consolidate a VIE if it is the VIE’s primary beneficiary. The primary beneficiary of a VIE is the entity that has the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly affect the VIE’s economic performance and has the obligation to absorb losses or has the right to residual returns that would potentially be significant to the entity.


224

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy consolidate the respective companies from which they lease nuclear fuel, usually in a sale and leaseback transaction. This is because Entergy directs the nuclear fuel companies with respect to nuclear fuel purchases, assists the nuclear fuel companies in obtaining financing, and, if financing cannot be arranged, the lessee (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, or System Energy) is responsible to repurchase nuclear fuel to allow the nuclear fuel company (the VIE) to meet its obligations. During the term of the arrangements, none of the Entergy operating companies have been required to provide financial support apart from their scheduled lease payments. See Note 4 to the financial statements for details of the nuclear fuel companies’ credit facility and commercial paper borrowings and long-term debt that are reported by Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy. These amounts also represent Entergy’s and the respective Registrant Subsidiary’s maximum exposure to losses associated with their respective interests in the nuclear fuel companies.


Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding I, LLC, and Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, LLC, companies wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, are variable interest entities and Entergy Texas is the primary beneficiary. In June 2007, Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding issued senior secured transition bonds (securitization bonds) to finance Entergy Texas’s Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs. In November 2009, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding issued senior secured transition bonds (securitization bonds) to finance Entergy Texas’s Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav restoration costs. With the proceeds, the variable interest entities purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a transition charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. The transition property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Texas balance sheet. The creditors of Entergy Texas do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of the variable interest entities, including the transition property, and the creditors
228

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

of the variable interest entities do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Texas. Entergy Texas has no payment obligations to the variable interest entities except to remit transition charge collections. See Note 5 to the financial statements for additional details regarding the securitization bonds.


Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Arkansas, is a variable interest entity and Entergy Arkansas is the primary beneficiary. In August 2010, Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding issued storm cost recovery bonds to finance Entergy Arkansas’s January 2009 ice storm damage restoration costs. With the proceeds, Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding purchased from Entergy Arkansas the storm recovery property, which is the right to recover from customers through a storm recovery charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds.  The storm recovery property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Arkansas balance sheet. The creditorssheet as of Entergy Arkansas doDecember 31, 2019. Although the principal amount was not have recourse to the assets or revenues ofdue until August 2021, Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding includingmade principal payments on the storm recovery property, andbonds in 2020, after which the creditors of Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Arkansas has no payment obligations to Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding except to remit storm recovery charge collections.bonds were fully repaid. See Note 5 to the financial statements for additional details regarding the storm cost recovery bonds.


Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding I, L.L.C., a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Louisiana, is a variable interest entity and Entergy Louisiana is the primary beneficiary. In September 2011, Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding issued investment recovery bonds to recover Entergy Louisiana’s investment recovery costs associated with the canceled Little Gypsy repowering project.  With the proceeds, Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding purchased from Entergy Louisiana the investment recovery property, which is the right to recover from customers through an investment recovery charge amounts sufficient to service the bonds. The investment recovery property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Louisiana balance sheet.  The creditors of Entergy Louisiana do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding, including the investment recovery property, and the creditors of Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana has no payment obligations to Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding except to remit investment recovery charge collections. See Note 5 to the financial statements for additional details regarding the investment recovery bonds.


Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding I, L.L.C., a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy New Orleans, is a variable interest entity, and Entergy New Orleans is the primary beneficiary. In July 2015,

225

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements


Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding issued storm cost recovery bonds to recover Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm restoration costs, including carrying costs, the costs of funding and replenishing the storm recovery reserve, and up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. With the proceeds, Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding purchased from Entergy New Orleans the storm recovery property, which is the right to recover from customers through a storm recovery charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. The storm recovery property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy New Orleans balance sheet. The creditors of Entergy New Orleans do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding, including the storm recovery property, and the creditors of Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy New Orleans. Entergy New Orleans has no payment obligations to Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding except to remit storm recovery charge collections. See Note 5 to the financial statements for additional details regarding the securitization bonds.

Entergy Louisiana was considered to hold a variable interest in the lessor from which it leased an undivided interest in the Waterford 3 nuclear plant. After Entergy Louisiana acquired a beneficial interest in the leased assets in March 2016, however, the lessor was no longer considered a variable interest entity. Entergy Louisiana made payments on its lease, including interest, of $9.2 million through March 2016 and $28.8 million in 2015.  See Note 10 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s purchase of the Waterford 3 leased assets.


System Energy is considered to hold a variable interest in the lessor from which it leases an undivided interest in the Grand Gulf nuclear plant.  System Energy is the lessee under this arrangement, which is described in more detail in Note 105 to the financial statements. System Energy made payments on its lease, including interest, of $17.2 million in 2017,2020, $17.2 million in 2016,2019, and $52.3$17.2 million in 2015.2018.  The lessor is a bank acting in the capacity of owner trustee for the benefit of equity investors in the transaction pursuant to trust agreement entered solely for the purpose of facilitating the lease transaction.  It is possible that System Energy may be considered as the primary beneficiary of the lessor, but Entergyit is unable to apply the authoritative accounting guidance with respect to this VIE because the lessor is not required to, and could not, provide the necessary financial information to consolidate the
229

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




lessor.  Because EntergySystem Energy accounts for this leasing arrangement as a capital financing, however, EntergySystem Energy believes that consolidating the lessor would not materially affect the financial statements.  In the unlikely event of default under a lease, remedies available to the lessor include payment by the lessee of the fair value of the undivided interest in the plant, payment of the present value of the basic rent payments, or payment of a predetermined casualty value.  EntergySystem Energy believes, however, that the obligations recorded on the balance sheet materially represent the company’sits potential exposure to loss.


Entergy has also reviewed various lease arrangements, power purchase agreements, including agreements for renewable power, and other agreements that represent variable interests in other legal entities which have been determined to be variable interest entities.  In these cases, Entergy has determined that it is not the primary beneficiary of the related VIE because it does not have the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly affect the VIE’s economic performance, or it does not have the obligation to absorb losses or the right to residual returns that would potentially be significant to the entity, or both.


NOTE 18.   TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATES (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Each Registrant Subsidiary purchases electricity from or sells electricity to the other Registrant Subsidiaries, or both, under rate schedules filed with the FERC.  The Registrant Subsidiaries receive management, technical, advisory, operating, and administrative services from Entergy Services; and receive management, technical, and operating services from Entergy Operations.  These transactions are on an “at cost” basis.


As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, all of System Energy’s operating revenues consist of billings to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.


226

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



As described in Note 4 to the financial statements, the Registrant Subsidiaries participate in Entergy’s money pool and earn interest income from the money pool.  As described in Note 2 to the financial statements, Entergy Louisiana receives preferred membership interest distributions from Entergy Holdings Company.


The tables below contain the various affiliate transactions of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and other Entergy affiliates.


Intercompany Revenues
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Millions)
2020$105.2 $280.5 $1.2 $0 $40.4 $520.7 
2019$117.5 $277.8 $1.4 $0 $51.6 $584.1 
2018$104.3 $299.0 $2.5 $0 $58.8 $456.7 
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
 (In Millions)
2017
$127.8
 
$282.4
 
$1.7
 
$—
 
$57.9
 
$633.5
2016
$49.4
 
$376.6
 
$2.9
 
$30.3
 
$180.2
 
$548.3
2015
$127.9
 
$420.2
 
$86.0
 
$66.1
 
$259.1
 
$632.4


Intercompany Operating Expenses
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Millions)
2020$515.5 $661.5 $283.3 $266.0 $260.3 $177.4 
2019$534.0 $665.4 $306.7 $292.1 $255.0 $156.2 
2018$471.9 $627.8 $266.8 $256.4 $240.2 $176.5 

230

 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
 (In Millions)
2017
$510.2
 
$619.5
 
$310.5
 
$286.1
 
$234.6
 
$197.0
2016
$467.4
 
$670.8
 
$256.5
 
$276.7
 
$343.7
 
$146.0
2015
$508.5
 
$929.4
 
$331.8
 
$278.4
 
$413.7
 
$155.1

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

Intercompany Interest and Investment Income
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Millions)
2020$0 $127.7 $0.1 $0 $0 $0.2 
2019$0.4 $128.5 $0.4 $0 $0.4 $1.0 
2018$0.4 $128.2 $0 $0 $0.2 $1.2 
  Entergy Louisiana 
Entergy
Mississippi
 
Entergy
New
Orleans
 
System
Energy
  (In Millions)
         
2017 
$128.0
 
$—
 
$0.2
 
$0.9
2016 
$127.7
 
$0.1
 
$—
 
$0.1
2015 
$133.6
 
$—
 
$—
 
$—


Transactions with Equity Method Investees


EWO Marketing, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy, paid capacity charges and gas transportation to RS Cogen in the amounts of $24.6$26 million in 2017, $24.7 million in 2016, and2020, $24.5 million in 2015.2019, and $24 million in 2018.


Entergy’s operating transactions with its other equity method investees were not significant in 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, or 2015.2018.



NOTE 19.  REVENUE (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

Revenues from electric service and the sale of natural gas are recognized when services are transferred to the customer in an amount equal to what Entergy has the right to bill the customer because this amount represents the value of services provided to customers. Entergy’s total revenues for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 are as follows:
20202019
(In Thousands)
Utility:
Residential$3,550,317 $3,531,500 
Commercial2,292,740 2,475,586 
Industrial2,331,170 2,541,287 
Governmental212,131 228,470 
Total billed retail8,386,358 8,776,843 
Sales for resale (a)295,810 285,722 
Other electric revenues (b)348,102 343,143 
Revenues from contracts with customers9,030,270 9,405,708 
Other revenues (c)16,373 24,270 
Total electric revenues9,046,643 9,429,978 
Natural gas124,008 153,954 
Entergy Wholesale Commodities:
Competitive businesses sales from contracts with customers (a)771,360 1,164,552 
Other revenues (c)171,625 130,189 
Total competitive businesses revenues942,985 1,294,741 
Total operating revenues$10,113,636 $10,878,673 

227
231

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






The Registrant Subsidiaries’ total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2020 were as follows:
2020Entergy
Arkansas
Entergy
Louisiana
Entergy
Mississippi
Entergy
New
Orleans
Entergy
Texas
(In Thousands)
Residential$841,162 $1,270,187 $523,379 $243,502 $672,087 
Commercial466,273 886,548 395,875 179,406 364,638 
Industrial461,907 1,314,234 145,100 24,248 385,681 
Governmental18,011 68,901 41,955 59,819 23,445 
Total billed retail1,787,353 3,539,870 1,106,309 506,975 1,445,851 
Sales for resale (a)173,115 333,594 77,530 33,213 100,273 
Other electric revenues (b)109,642 141,004 54,590 8,294 39,981 
Revenues from contracts with customers2,070,110 4,014,468 1,238,429 548,482 1,586,105 
Other revenues (c)14,384 4,595 9,425 12,150 1,020 
Total electric revenues2,084,494 4,019,063 1,247,854 560,632 1,587,125 
Natural gas50,799 73,209 
Total operating revenues$2,084,494 $4,069,862 $1,247,854 $633,841 $1,587,125 

The Registrant Subsidiaries’ total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2019 were as follows:
2019Entergy
Arkansas
Entergy
Louisiana
Entergy
Mississippi
Entergy
New
Orleans
Entergy
Texas
(In Thousands)
Residential$795,269 $1,270,478 $562,219 $245,081 $658,453 
Commercial538,850 947,412 444,173 202,138 343,013 
Industrial520,958 1,450,966 164,491 31,824 373,048 
Governmental20,795 71,046 44,300 70,865 21,464 
Total billed retail1,875,872 3,739,902 1,215,183 549,908 1,395,978 
Sales for resale (a)257,864 333,395 39,295 38,626 59,074 
Other electric revenues (b)112,618 135,783 58,269 9,842 32,424 
Revenues from contracts with customers2,246,354 4,209,080 1,312,747 598,376 1,487,476 
Other revenues (c)13,240 13,947 10,296 (3,959)1,479 
Total electric revenues2,259,594 4,223,027 1,323,043 594,417 1,488,955 
Natural gas62,148 91,806 
Total operating revenues$2,259,594 $4,285,175 $1,323,043 $686,223 $1,488,955 

(a)Sales for resale and competitive businesses sales include day-ahead sales of energy in a market administered by an ISO. These sales represent financially binding commitments for the sale of physical energy the next day. These sales are adjusted to actual power generated and delivered in the real time market. Given the short duration of these transactions, Entergy does not consider them to be derivatives subject to fair value adjustments, and includes them as part of customer revenues.
(b)Other electric revenues consist primarily of transmission and ancillary services provided to participants of an ISO-administered market and unbilled revenue.
232

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

(c)Other revenues include the settlement of financial hedges, occasional sales of inventory, alternative revenue programs, provisions for revenue subject to refund, and late fees.

Electric Revenues

Entergy’s primary source of revenue is from retail electric sales sold under tariff rates approved by regulators in its various jurisdictions. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas generate, transmit, and distribute electric power primarily to retail customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Entergy’s Utility operating companies provide power to customers on demand throughout the month, measured by a meter located at the customer’s property. Approved rates vary by customer class due to differing requirements of the customers and market factors involved in fulfilling those requirements. Entergy issues monthly bills to customers at rates approved by regulators for power and related services provided during the previous billing cycle.

To the extent that deliveries have occurred but a bill has not been issued, Entergy’s Utility operating companies record an estimate for energy delivered since the latest billings. The Utility operating companies calculate the estimate based upon several factors including billings through the last billing cycle in a month, actual generation in the month, historical line loss factors, and market prices of power in the respective jurisdiction. The inputs are revised as needed to approximate actual usage and cost. Each month, estimated unbilled amounts are recorded as unbilled revenue and accounts receivable, and the prior month’s estimate is reversed. Price and volume differences resulting from factors such as weather affect the calculation of unbilled revenues from one period to the other.

Entergy may record revenue based on rates that are subject to refund. Such revenues are reduced by estimated refund amounts when Entergy believes refunds are probable based on the status of rate proceedings as of the date financial statements are prepared. Because these refunds will be made through a reduction in future rates, and not as a reduction in bills previously issued, they are presented as other revenues in the table above.

System Energy’s only source of revenue is the sale of electric power and capacity generated from its 90% interest in the Grand Gulf nuclear plant to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. System Energy issues monthly bills to its affiliated customers equal to its actual operating costs plus a return on common equity approved by the FERC.

Entergy’s Utility operating companies also sell excess power not needed for its own customers, primarily through transactions with MISO, a regional transmission organization that maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and manages one of the largest energy markets in the U.S. In the MISO market, Entergy offers its generation and bids its load into the market. MISO settles these offers and bids based on locational marginal prices. These represent pricing for energy at a given location based on a market clearing price that takes into account physical limitations on the transmission system, generation, and demand throughout the MISO region. MISO evaluates each market participant’s energy offers and demand bids to economically and reliably dispatch the entire MISO system. Entergy nets purchases and sales within the MISO market and reports in operating revenues when in a net selling position and in operating expenses when in a net purchasing position.

Natural Gas

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans also distribute natural gas to retail customers in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and New Orleans, Louisiana, respectively. Gas transferred to customers is measured by a meter at the customer’s property. Entergy issues monthly invoices to customers at rates approved by regulators for the volume of gas transferred to date.

233

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Competitive Businesses Revenues

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment derives almost all of its revenue from sales of electric power and capacity produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. The majority of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues are from Entergy’s nuclear power plants located in the northern United States. Entergy issues monthly invoices to the counterparties for these electric sales at the respective contracted or ISO market rate of electricity and related services provided during the previous month.

Almost all of the Palisades nuclear plant output is sold under a 15-year PPA with Consumers Energy, executed as part of the acquisition of the plant in 2007 and expiring in April 2022. Prices under the original PPA range from $43.50/MWh in 2007 to $61.50/MWh in 2022, and the average price under the PPA is $51/MWh. Entergy executed an additional PPA to cover the period from the expiration of the original PPA through final shutdown in May 2022, at a price of $24.14/MWh. Entergy issues monthly invoices to Consumers Energy for electric sales based on the actual output of electricity and related services provided during the previous month at the contract price.  The PPA was at below-market prices at the time of the acquisition and Entergy amortizes a liability to revenue over the life of the agreement.  The amount amortized each period is based upon the present value, calculated at the date of acquisition, of each year’s difference between revenue under the agreement and revenue based on estimated market prices.  Amounts amortized to revenue were $11 million in 2020, $10 million in 2019, and $6 million in 2018.  Amounts to be amortized to revenue through the remaining life of the agreement will be approximately $12 million in 2021 and $5 million in 2022.

Practical Expedients and Exceptions

Entergy has elected not to disclose the value of unsatisfied performance obligations for contracts with an original expected term of one year or less, or for revenue recognized in an amount equal to what Entergy has the right to bill the customer for services performed.

Most of Entergy’s contracts, except in a few cases where there are defined minimums or stated terms, are on demand. This results in customer bills that vary each month based on an approved tariff and usage. Entergy imposes monthly or annual minimum requirements on some customers primarily as credit and cost recovery guarantees and not as pricing for unsatisfied performance obligations. These minimums typically expire after the initial term or when specified costs have been recovered. The minimum amounts are part of each month’s bill and recognized as revenue accordingly. Some of the subsidiaries within the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment have operations and maintenance services contracts that have fixed components and terms longer than one year. The total fixed consideration related to these unsatisfied performance obligations, however, is not material to Entergy revenues.

Recovery of Fuel Costs

Entergy’s Utility operating companies’ rate schedules include either fuel adjustment clauses or fixed fuel factors, which allow either current recovery in billings to customers or deferral of fuel costs until the costs are billed to customers. Where the fuel component of revenues is based on a pre-determined fuel cost (fixed fuel factor), the fuel factor remains in effect until changed as part of a general rate case, fuel reconciliation, or fixed fuel factor filing. System Energy’s operating revenues are intended to recover from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans operating expenses and capital costs attributable to Grand Gulf. The capital costs are based on System Energy’s common equity funds allocable to its net investment in Grand Gulf, plus System Energy’s effective interest cost for its debt allocable to its investment in Grand Gulf.

Taxes Imposed on Revenue-Producing Transactions

Governmental authorities assess taxes that are both imposed on and concurrent with a specific revenue-producing transaction between a seller and a customer, including, but not limited to, sales, use, value added, and
234

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

some excise taxes.  Entergy presents these taxes on a net basis, excluding them from revenues.

Allowance for doubtful accounts

The allowance for doubtful accounts reflects Entergy’s best estimate of expected losses on its accounts receivable balances. Due to the essential nature of utility services, Entergy has historically experienced a low rate of default on its accounts receivables. Due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on customer receivables, however, Entergy recorded an increase in its allowance for doubtful accounts, as shown below:
EntergyEntergy
Arkansas
Entergy
Louisiana
Entergy
Mississippi
Entergy
New
Orleans
Entergy
Texas
 (In Millions)
Balance as of December 31, 2019$7.4 $1.2 $1.9 $0.6 $3.2 $0.5 
Provisions (a)109.0 16.2 43.7 18.8 14.1 16.2 
Write-offs(8.6)(1.8)(3.5)(1.2)(1.0)(1.1)
Recoveries9.9 2.7 3.6 1.3 1.1 1.2 
Balance as of December 31, 2020$117.7 $18.3 $45.7 $19.5 $17.4 $16.8 
(a)Provisions include estimated incremental bad debt expenses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic of $87.1 million for Entergy, $10.5 million for Entergy Arkansas, $36 million for Entergy Louisiana, $15.5 million for Entergy Mississippi, $12.2 million for Entergy New Orleans, and $12.9 million for Entergy Texas that have been deferred as regulatory assets. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the COVID-19 orders issued by retail regulators.
The allowance for currently expected credit losses is calculated as the historical rate of customer write-offs multiplied by the current accounts receivable balance, taking into account the length of time the receivable balances have been outstanding. Although the rate of customer write-offs has historically experienced minimal variation, management monitors the current condition of individual customer accounts to manage collections and ensure bad debt expense is recorded in a timely manner.

235

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




NOTE 19.20.  QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED) (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Operating results for the four quarters of 20172020 and 20162019 for Entergy Corporation and subsidiaries were:
 Operating RevenuesOperating IncomeConsolidated Net IncomeNet Income Attributable to Entergy Corporation
 (In Thousands)
2020:  
First Quarter$2,427,179 $399,756 $123,294 $118,714 
Second Quarter$2,412,788 $439,311 $365,113 $360,533 
Third Quarter$2,903,568 $778,016 $525,699 $521,119 
Fourth Quarter$2,370,101 $152,112 $392,547 $387,968 
2019:  
First Quarter$2,609,584 $283,254 $258,646 $254,537 
Second Quarter$2,666,209 $338,775 $240,533 $236,424 
Third Quarter$3,140,575 $519,929 $369,459 $365,240 
Fourth Quarter$2,462,305 $248,539 $389,606 $385,025 
 Operating Revenues Operating Income (Loss) Consolidated Net Income (Loss) Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Entergy Corporation
 (In Thousands)
2017:   
First Quarter
$2,588,458
 
$174,803
 
$86,051
 
$82,605
Second Quarter
$2,618,550
 
$143,509
 
$413,368
 
$409,922
Third Quarter
$3,243,628
 
$729,469
 
$401,644
 
$398,198
Fourth Quarter
$2,623,845
 
$211,901
 
($475,710) 
($479,113)
2016:   
First Quarter
$2,609,852
 
$498,218
 
$235,242
 
$229,966
Second Quarter
$2,462,562
 
$442,258
 
$572,590
 
$567,314
Third Quarter
$3,124,703
 
$772,060
 
$393,204
 
$388,170
Fourth Quarter
$2,648,528
 
($2,599,001) 
($1,765,539) 
($1,769,068)


Earnings (loss) per average common share
 20202019
 BasicDilutedBasicDiluted
First Quarter$0.59 $0.59 $1.34 $1.32 
Second Quarter$1.80 $1.79 $1.22 $1.22 
Third Quarter$2.60 $2.59 $1.84 $1.82 
Fourth Quarter$1.95 $1.93 $1.96 $1.94 
 2017 2016
 Basic Diluted Basic Diluted
First Quarter
$0.46
 
$0.46
 
$1.29
 
$1.28
Second Quarter
$2.28
 
$2.27
 
$3.17
 
$3.16
Third Quarter
$2.22
 
$2.21
 
$2.17
 
$2.16
Fourth Quarter
($2.67) 
($2.66) 
($9.89) 
($9.86)


Results of operations for 20172020 include resolution of the 2014-2015 IRS audit, which resulted in a reduction in deferred income tax expense of $230 million that includes a $396 million reduction in deferred income tax expense at Utility related to the basis of assets contributed in the 2015 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana business combination, including the recognition of previously uncertain tax positions, and deferred income tax expense of $105 million at Entergy Wholesale Commodities and $61 million at Parent and Other resulting from the revaluation of net operating losses as a result of the release of the reserves. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the IRS audit resolution.

Results of operations for 2019 include: 1) $538a loss of $190 million ($350156 million net-of-tax) as a result of the sale of the Pilgrim plant in August 2019; 2) a $156 million reduction in income tax expense recognized by Entergy Wholesale Commodities as a result of an internal restructuring; and 3) impairment charges of $100 million ($79 million net-of-tax) due to costs being charged directly to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired value of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size ofexit the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet; 2) a reduction in income of $181 million, including a $34 million net-of-tax reduction of regulatory liabilities, at Utility and $397 million at Entergy Wholesale Commodities and an increase in income of $52 million at Parent and Other as a result of Entergy’s re-measurement of its deferred tax assets and liabilities not subjectpower business. See Note 3 to the ratemaking process due to the enactmentfinancial statements for further discussion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, which lowered the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%; and 3) a reduction in income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, of $373 million as a result of a change in the tax classification of legal entities that own Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.internal restructuring. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment and related charges. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussionsale of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the change in the tax classification.Pilgrim plant.


Results of operations for 2016 include: 1) $2,836 million ($1,829 million net-of-tax) of impairment and related charges primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Palisades, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair values; 2) a reduction of income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, of $238 million as a result of a change in the tax classification of a legal entity that owned one of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants; income tax benefits as a result of the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit, including a $75 million tax benefit recognized by Entergy Louisiana related to the treatment


228
236

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements



of the Vidalia purchased power agreement and a $54 million net benefit recognized by Entergy Louisiana related to the treatment of proceeds received in 2010 for the financing of Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55; and 3) a reduction in expenses of $100 million ($64 million net-of-tax) due to the effects of recording in 2016 the final court decisions in several lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment and related charges, see Note 3 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the income tax items, and see Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

The business of the Utility operating companies is subject to seasonal fluctuations with the peak periods occurring during the third quarter.  Operating results for the Registrant Subsidiaries for the four quarters of 20172020 and 20162019 were:

Operating Revenues
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
2020:      
First Quarter$481,912 $930,647 $293,922 $149,302 $339,336 $130,664 
Second Quarter$491,767 $1,011,652 $297,954 $147,343 $372,194 $126,049 
Third Quarter$644,389 $1,120,022 $356,496 $182,064 $494,922 $148,517 
Fourth Quarter$466,426 $1,007,541 $299,482 $155,132 $380,673 $90,228 
2019:      
First Quarter$545,812 $959,330 $282,244 $163,194 $340,474 $140,104 
Second Quarter$542,929 $1,106,317 $302,737 $175,793 $363,580 $139,009 
Third Quarter$687,526 $1,231,677 $398,732 $194,204 $442,877 $145,472 
Fourth Quarter$483,327 $987,851 $339,330 $153,032 $342,024 $148,825 
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
 (In Thousands)
2017:           
First Quarter
$474,351
 
$880,783
 
$258,443
 
$168,989
 
$363,927
 
$154,787
Second Quarter
$496,662
 
$1,083,434
 
$291,212
 
$176,222
 
$378,488
 
$164,956
Third Quarter
$673,226
 
$1,290,494
 
$349,197
 
$199,017
 
$432,909
 
$156,106
Fourth Quarter
$495,680
 
$1,045,839
 
$299,377
 
$171,842
 
$369,569
 
$157,609
2016:           
First Quarter
$465,373
 
$955,145
 
$263,046
 
$149,340
 
$378,304
 
$137,693
Second Quarter
$504,252
 
$999,034
 
$248,138
 
$164,920
 
$412,922
 
$151,323
Third Quarter
$654,599
 
$1,249,452
 
$309,739
 
$201,336
 
$442,085
 
$114,039
Fourth Quarter
$462,384
 
$973,417
 
$273,726
 
$149,867
 
$382,308
 
$145,236


Operating Income
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
2020:      
First Quarter$67,835 $166,779 $41,181 $12,091 $36,060 $35,309 
Second Quarter$107,949 $256,412 $67,705 $7,602 $56,443 $31,236 
Third Quarter$217,648 $324,496 $93,843 $32,322 $108,306 $48,896 
Fourth Quarter$9,126 $117,134 $33,466 $12,397 $46,040 $1,303 
2019:      
First Quarter$42,471 $153,944 $30,792 $16,136 $16,741 $31,368 
Second Quarter$69,774 $241,520 $45,607 $17,509 $36,022 $24,300 
Third Quarter$182,176 $336,754 $87,024 $28,876 $69,510 $29,086 
Fourth Quarter$32,576 $164,424 $40,331 $6,164 $24,229 $30,231 
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
 (In Thousands)
2017:           
First Quarter
$39,847
 
$152,648
 
$39,608
 
$21,762
 
$38,842
 
$41,544
Second Quarter
$68,994
 
$193,779
 
$55,262
 
$27,606
 
$47,787
 
$40,717
Third Quarter
$169,755
 
$290,089
 
$84,035
 
$33,415
 
$78,950
 
$37,459
Fourth Quarter
$14,507
 
$210,325
 
$42,169
 
$12,333
 
$33,800
 
$41,073
2016:           
First Quarter
$54,378
 
$181,618
 
$41,573
 
$21,880
 
$41,269
 
$47,466
Second Quarter
$73,447
 
$193,752
 
$61,890
 
$26,913
 
$58,039
 
$45,020
Third Quarter
$188,660
 
$312,951
 
$88,312
 
$42,279
 
$107,964
 
$43,886
Fourth Quarter
$29,843
 
$111,066
 
$32,464
 
$8,807
 
$38,338
 
$44,781





229
237

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements






Net Income (Loss)
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
2020:      
First Quarter$44,595 $189,396 $22,526 $11,186 $32,707 $28,513 
Second Quarter$60,170 $170,459 $38,893 $4,929 $46,868 $28,991 
Third Quarter$135,843 $223,466 $58,589 $19,450 $92,164 $31,064 
Fourth Quarter$4,624 $499,031 $20,575 $13,773 $43,334 $10,563 
2019:      
First Quarter$39,121 $127,633 $15,398 $9,023 $21,342 $23,578 
Second Quarter$50,299 $183,084 $26,667 $13,003 $38,936 $24,472 
Third Quarter$149,716 $255,260 $56,237 $24,908 $73,224 $25,031 
Fourth Quarter$23,828 $125,560 $21,623 $5,695 $25,895 $26,039 
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy
 (In Thousands)
2017:           
First Quarter
$14,304
 
$94,378
 
$17,158
 
$10,978
 
$10,854
 
$20,347
Second Quarter
$38,550
 
$124,479
 
$28,303
 
$14,882
 
$21,101
 
$19,350
Third Quarter
$92,638
 
$186,284
 
$46,545
 
$18,529
 
$39,588
 
$20,583
Fourth Quarter
($5,648) 
($88,794) 
$18,026
 
$164
 
$4,630
 
$18,316
2016:           
First Quarter
$19,294
 
$111,606
 
$17,118
 
$11,167
 
$14,562
 
$25,958
Second Quarter
$33,891
 
$253,325
 
$32,194
 
$11,843
 
$24,058
 
$25,090
Third Quarter
$110,148
 
$189,506
 
$46,612
 
$23,701
 
$56,133
 
$22,370
Fourth Quarter
$3,879
 
$67,610
 
$13,260
 
$2,138
 
$12,785
 
$23,326


Earnings (Loss) Applicable to Common EquityEquity/Stock
Entergy Texas
(In Thousands)
2020:
First Quarter$32,237 
Second Quarter$46,397 
Third Quarter$91,694 
Fourth Quarter$42,863 
2019:
First Quarter$21,342 
Second Quarter$38,936 
Third Quarter$73,114 
Fourth Quarter$25,425 


238
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans
 (In Thousands)
2017:     
First Quarter
$13,947
 
$16,920
 
$10,737
Second Quarter
$38,193
 
$28,064
 
$14,641
Third Quarter
$92,281
 
$46,307
 
$18,288
Fourth Quarter
($6,005) 
$17,788
 
$46
2016:     
First Quarter
$17,576
 
$16,411
 
$10,926
Second Quarter
$32,173
 
$31,487
 
$11,602
Third Quarter
$108,672
 
$45,905
 
$23,460
Fourth Quarter
$3,521
 
$12,938
 
$1,896



230

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy
RISK FACTORS SUMMARY

Entergy’s business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that could affect its ability to successfully implement its business strategy and affect its financial results. Carefully consider all of the information in this report and, in particular, the following principal risks and all of the other specific factors described in Item 1A. of this report, “Risk Factors,” before deciding whether to invest in Entergy or the Registrant Subsidiaries.

Utility Regulatory Risks

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and responsive measures taken are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.
The terms and conditions of service, including electric and gas rates, of the Utility operating companies and System Energy are determined through regulatory approval proceedings that can be lengthy and subject to appeal, potentially resulting in lengthy litigation and uncertainty as to ultimate results.
The Utility operating companies recover fuel, purchased power, and associated costs through rate mechanisms that are subject to risks of delay or disallowance in regulatory proceedings.
Entergy’s business could experience adverse effects related to changes to state or federal legislation or regulation.
There remains uncertainty regarding the effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies.
The Utility operating companies are subject to risks associated with participation in the MISO markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs.
A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred as a result of severe weather (including from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta) could have material effects on Entergy and those Utility operating companies affected by severe weather.

Nuclear Operating, Shutdown, and Regulatory Risks

The results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities could be materially affected by the following:
failure to consistently operate their nuclear power plants at high capacity factors;
refueling outages that last longer than anticipated or unplanned outages;
risks related to the purchase of uranium fuel (and its conversion, enrichment, and fabrication);
the risk that the NRC will change or modify its regulations, suspend or revoke their licenses, or increase oversight of their nuclear plants;
risks and costs related to operating and maintaining their nuclear power plants;
the costs associated with the storage of the spent nuclear fuel, as well as the costs of and their ability to fully decommission their nuclear power plants;
the potential requirement to pay substantial retrospective premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act in the event of a nuclear incident, and losses not covered by insurance;
the risk that the decommissioning trust fund assets for the nuclear power plants may not be adequate to meet decommissioning obligations if market performance and other changes decrease the value of assets in the decommissioning trusts; and
new or existing safety concerns regarding operating nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel.
Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ power plants are subject to impairment charges in certain circumstances and its nuclear power plants are exposed to price risk.
The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to substantial governmental regulation and may be adversely affected by legislative, regulatory, or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

239

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy
General Business Risks

Entergy and the Utility operating companies depend on access to the capital markets and, at times, may face potential liquidity constraints, which could make it more difficult to handle future contingencies.  Disruptions in the capital and credit markets may adversely affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to meet liquidity needs, access capital and operate and grow their businesses, and the cost of capital.
A downgrade in Entergy Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ credit ratings could, among other things, negatively affect Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to access capital.
Changes in tax legislation and taxation as well as the inherent difficulty in quantifying potential tax effects of business decisions could negatively impact Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.
Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to successfully execute on their business strategies, including their ability to complete capital projects, other capital improvements, and strategic transactions is subject to significant risks, and, as a result, they may be unable to achieve some or all of the anticipated results of such strategies.
Failure to attract, retain, and manage an appropriately qualified workforce could negatively affect Entergy or its subsidiaries’ results of operations.
The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs (i) to fulfill their obligations related to environmental and other matters or (ii) related to reliability standards.
Weather, economic conditions, technological developments, and other factors may have a material impact on electricity and gas usage and otherwise materially affect the Utility operating companies’ results of operations.
Entergy could be negatively affected by the effects of climate change and environmental and regulatory obligations intended to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions or increase clean or renewable energy requirements or to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions.
Entergy is dependent on the continued and future availability and quality of water for cooling, process, and sanitary uses.
Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be adequately hedged against changes in commodity prices.
The Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties may not meet their obligations.
Market performance and other changes may decrease the value of benefit plan assets, which then could require additional funding and result in increased benefit plan costs.
The litigation environment in the states in which certain Entergy subsidiaries operate poses a significant risk to those businesses.
Terrorist attacks, cyber attacks, system failures, or data breaches of Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ or its suppliers’ technology systems may adversely affect Entergy’s results of operations.
The effect of higher purchased gas cost charges to customers taking gas service may adversely affect Entergy New Orleans’s results of operations and liquidity.
System Energy owns and, through an affiliate, operates a single nuclear generating facility, and it is dependent on sales to affiliated companies for all of its revenues. Certain contractual arrangements relating to System Energy, the affiliated companies, and these revenues are the subject of ongoing litigation and regulatory proceedings.
As a holding company, Entergy Corporation depends on cash distributions from its subsidiaries to meet its debt service and other financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock.

240

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy




ENTERGY’S BUSINESS


Entergy is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations.  Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 MW of electric generating capacity, including nearly 9,000approximately 8,000 MW of nuclear power. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.93.0 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.  Entergy had annual revenues of $11.1$10.1 billion in 20172020 and had more than 13,000 employees as of December 31, 2017.2020.


Entergy operates primarily through two business segments: Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.


The Utility business segment includes the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric power in portions of Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, including the City of New Orleans; and operation of a small natural gas distribution business.
The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants located in the northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also provides services to other nuclear power plant owners and owns interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers. See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” for discussion of the operation and planned shutdown orand sale of each of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.


See Note 13 to the financial statements for financial information regarding Entergy’s business segments.


Strategy


Entergy’s missionstrategy is to operate a world-class energyand grow the premier utility business that creates sustainable value for its owners, customers, employees, communities, and communities.  Entergy aspiresowners. Entergy’s strategy to achieve top quartile total shareholder returnsits stakeholder objectives has two key aspects. First, Entergy invests in a socially and environmentally responsible fashion by leveraging the scale and expertise inherent in its operations.  Entergy’s current scope includes electricity generation, transmission, and distribution as well as natural gas distribution.  Entergy focuses on operational excellence with an emphasis on safety, reliability, customer service, sustainability, cost efficiency, risk management, and engaged employees.  Entergy also continually seeks opportunities to grow its utility business to benefit all stakeholders and to optimize its portfolio of assets in an ever-dynamic market through periodic buy, build, hold, or disposal decisions.  To accomplish this, Entergy has established strategic imperatives for each business segment.  For the Utility for the strategic imperative is to modernize its operations, maintain reliability, and better servebenefit of its customers, while growingwhich supports steady, predictable growth in earnings and dividends. Second, Entergy manages risks by ensuring its Utility investments are customer-centric, supported by progressive regulatory constructs, and executed with disciplined project management.  Entergy’s strategy for the business. For Entergy Wholesale Commodities the strategic imperativebusiness segment is to continue to manage the risk of its operating portfolio as Entergy completes its exit from the merchant power business.


Utility

The Utility business segment includes five wholly-owned retail electric utility subsidiaries: Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.  These companies generate, transmit, distribute, and sell electric power to retail and wholesale customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans also provide natural gas utility services to customers in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and New Orleans, Louisiana, respectively.  Also included in the Utility is System Energy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation that owns or leases 90 percent of Grand Gulf.  System Energy sells its power and capacity from Grand Gulf at wholesale to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.  The five retail utility subsidiaries are each regulated by the FERC and by state utility commissions, or, in the case of Entergy New Orleans, the City Council.  System Energy is regulated by the FERC because all of its transactions are at wholesale.  The overall generation portfolio of the Utility, which relies heavily on natural gas and nuclear generation, is consistent with Entergy’s strong support for the environment.



231
241

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Customers


As of December 31, 2017,2020, the Utility operating companies provided retail electric and gas service to customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, as follows:
  Electric CustomersGas Customers
 Area Served(In Thousands)(%)(In Thousands)(%)
Entergy ArkansasPortions of Arkansas722 25 %  
Entergy LouisianaPortions of Louisiana1,096 37 %94 47 %
Entergy MississippiPortions of Mississippi456 15 %  
Entergy New OrleansCity of New Orleans207 %108 53 %
Entergy TexasPortions of Texas473 16 %  
Total customers 2,954 100 %202 100 %
   Electric Customers Gas Customers
 Area Served (In Thousands) (%) (In Thousands) (%)
Entergy ArkansasPortions of Arkansas 709
 25%    
Entergy LouisianaPortions of Louisiana 1,078
 37% 93
 47%
Entergy MississippiPortions of Mississippi 449
 16%    
Entergy New OrleansCity of New Orleans 200
 7% 106
 53%
Entergy TexasPortions of Texas 448
 15%    
Total customers  2,884
 100% 199
 100%


Electric Energy Sales


The electric energy sales of the Utility operating companies are subject to seasonal fluctuations, with the peak sales period normally occurring during the third quarter of each year.  On July 20, 2017,August 10, 2020, Entergy reached a 20172020 peak demand of 21,67121,340 MWh, compared to the 20162019 peak of 21,38721,598 MWh recorded on July 21, 2016.August 12, 2019.  Selected electric energy sales data is shown in the table below:


Selected 20172020 Electric Energy Sales Data
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem EnergyEntergy (a)
 (In GWh)
Sales to retail customers20,749 53,896 12,402 5,447 18,677 — 111,170 
Sales for resale:     
Affiliates1,659 5,585 — — 1,203 5,849 — 
Others4,198 2,365 4,316 1,969 810 — 13,658 
Total26,606 61,846 16,718 7,416 20,690 5,849 124,828 
Average use per residential customer (kWh)12,633 14,576 14,093 12,315 14,829 — 13,917 
 Entergy Arkansas Entergy Louisiana Entergy Mississippi Entergy New Orleans Entergy Texas System Energy Entergy (a)
 (In GWh)
Sales to retail customers20,888
 55,243
 13,048
 5,622
 18,058
 
 112,859
Sales for resale:             
Affiliates1,782
 4,793
 
 
 1,534
 6,675
 
Others6,549
 1,711
 857
 1,703
 729
 
 11,550
Total29,219
 61,747
 13,905
 7,325
 20,321
 6,675
 124,409
Average use per residential customer (kWh)12,349
 14,377
 14,142
 11,986
 14,597
 
 13,716


(a)Includes the effect of intercompany eliminations.
(a)Includes the effect of intercompany eliminations.


The following table illustrates the Utility operating companies’ 20172020 combined electric sales volume as a percentage of total electric sales volume, and 20172020 combined electric revenues as a percentage of total 20172020 electric revenue, each by customer class.
Customer Class% of Sales Volume% of Revenue
Residential28.239.2
Commercial21.225.4
Industrial (a)37.725.8
Governmental2.02.3
Wholesale/Other10.97.3
Customer Class % of Sales Volume % of Revenue
Residential 27.2 36.2
Commercial 23.1 26.7
Industrial (a) 38.4 27.8
Governmental 2.0 2.5
Wholesale/Other 9.3 6.8


(a)Major industrial customers are primarily in the petroleum refining and chemical industries.

(a)Major industrial customers are primarily in the petroleum refining and chemical industries.

232

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



See “Selected Financial Data” for each of the Utility operating companies for the detail of their sales by customer class for 2013-2017.2016-2020.

242

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Selected 20172020 Natural Gas Sales Data


Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana provide both electric power and natural gas to retail customers.  Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana sold 9,745,8749,467,899 and 6,017,1746,268,003 Mcf, respectively, of natural gas to retail customers in 2017.2020.  In 2017,2020, 99% of Entergy Louisiana’s operating revenue was derived from the electric utility business, and only 1% from the natural gas distribution business.  For Entergy New Orleans, 88% of operating revenue was derived from the electric utility business and 12% from the natural gas distribution business in 2017.  2020.


Following is data concerning Entergy New Orleans’s 20172020 retail operating revenue sources.
Customer ClassElectric Operating RevenueNatural Gas Operating Revenue
Residential48%51%
Commercial35%25%
Industrial5%18%
Governmental/Municipal12%6%
Customer Class Electric Operating Revenue Natural Gas Operating Revenue
Residential 42% 46%
Commercial 39% 28%
Industrial 6% 7%
Governmental/Municipal 13% 19%


233

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Retail Rate Regulation


General (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas)


Each Utility operating company regularly participates in retail rate proceedings.  The status of material retail rate proceedings is described in Note 2 to the financial statements.  Certain aspects of the Utility operating companies’ retail rate mechanisms are discussed below.

Rate base (in billions)Current authorized return on common equityWeighted average cost of capital (after-tax)Equity ratioRegulatory construct
Entergy Arkansas$8.4 (a)9.25% - 10.25%5.04%36.6% - forward test year formula rate
plan through 2021 test year (i)

- riders: MISO, capacity, Grand
Gulf, tax adjustment, energy
efficiency, fuel and purchased
power
Entergy Louisiana (electric)$11.9 (b)9.2% - 10.4%6.97%48.63% - formula rate plan through 2019
test year (j)

- riders/specific recovery: MISO,
capacity, transmission, fuel
Entergy Louisiana (gas)$0.08 (c)9.3% - 10.3%6.96%48.37% - gas rate stabilization plan

- rider: gas infrastructure
243
  Rate base (in billions) Current authorized return on common equity Weighted average cost of capital (after-tax) Equity ratio Regulatory construct 
            
Entergy Arkansas $7.095 (a) 9.25% -10.25% 4.67% 31.69% - forward test year formula rate plan

- riders: MISO, capacity, Grand
Gulf, energy efficiency, fuel and
purchased power
 
            
Entergy Louisiana (electric) $8.303 (b) 9.15% - 10.75% 7.35% 49.64% - formula rate plan through 2016 test
year

- riders/specific recovery: MISO,
capacity, fuel
 
            
Entergy Louisiana (gas) $0.059 (c) 9.45% - 10.45% 7.54% 51.63% - gas rate stabilization plan

- rider: gas infrastructure
 
            
Entergy Mississippi $2.131 (d) 9.47% - 11.49% 7.35% 49.37% - formula rate plan with
forward-looking features

- riders: power management, Grand
Gulf, fuel, MISO, unit power cost,
storm damage, energy efficiency, ad
valorem tax adjustment
 
            
Entergy New Orleans (electric) $0.299 (e) 10.7% - 11.5% 8.58% 50.08% 
- rate case

- riders/specific recovery: fuel,
   capacity
 
            
Entergy New Orleans (gas) $0.089 (f) 10.25% - 11.25% 8.40% 50.08% 
- rate case

- rider: purchased gas
 
            
Entergy Texas $1.634 (g) 9.8% 8.22% 48.6% 
- rate case

- riders: fuel, distribution and
   transmission, RPCE payments
   and rate case expenses, among
   others
 
            
System Energy $1.201 (h) 10.94% 8.90% 65% - monthly cost of service 


234

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Entergy Mississippi$3.0 (d)8.89% - 10.93%6.82%49.09% - formula rate plan with
forward-looking features

- riders: power management, Grand
Gulf, fuel, MISO, unit power cost,
storm damage, energy efficiency,
ad valorem tax adjustment,
vegetation, grid modernization,
restructuring credit
Entergy New Orleans (electric)$0.8 (e)9.35%7.09%50%
 - formula rate plan with
       forward-looking features

 - riders/specific recovery: fuel and
       purchased power, MISO, energy
       efficiency, environmental
Entergy New Orleans (gas)$0.1 (e)9.35%7.09%50%
 - formula rate plan with
      forward-looking features

 - rider: purchased gas
Entergy Texas$2.4 (f)9.65%7.73%50.9% - rate case

- riders: fuel, distribution and
transmission, generation, rate case
expenses, AMI surcharge,
tax reform, among others
System Energy$1.6 (g)10.94% (h)8.57 %65% (h) - monthly cost of service
(a)Based on 2018 forward test year.
(b)Based on December 31, 2016 test year.
(c)Based on September 30, 2016 test year.
(d)Based on 2017 forward test year.
(e)Based on December 31, 2011 test year and excludes approximately $228 million first-year average rate base for Union.
(f)Based on December 31, 2011 test year.
(g)Based on March 31, 2013 adjusted test year and excludes approximately $331 million for rate base being recovered through the distribution cost recovery rider and the transmission cost recovery rider
(h)Based on calculation as of December 31, 2017.


(a)Based on 2021 test year.
(b)Based on December 31, 2019 test year and excludes approximately $800 million for the Lake Charles Power Station and $300 million for the Washington Parish Energy Center, each included in the capacity rider, and $400 million of transmission plant, included in the transmission rider.
(c)Based on September 30, 2019 test year.
(d)Based on 2020 forward test year and excludes approximately $300 million for the Choctaw Generating Station, included in interim capacity mechanism.
(e)Based on December 31, 2018 test year and known and measurables through December 31, 2019. Electric rate base excludes approximately $190 million for New Orleans Power Station and $40 million for New Orleans Solar Station.
(f)Based on December 31, 2017 test year and excludes $1.0 billion in cost recovery riders.
(g)Based on calculation as of December 31, 2020.
(h)See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of ongoing proceedings at the FERC challenging System Energy’s authorized return on common equity and capital structure.
(i)See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s pending formula rate plan extension request.
(j)See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s pending formula rate plan extension request.

244

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy Arkansas


Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery


Entergy Arkansas’s rate schedules include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and purchased power costs in monthly bills.  The rider utilizes prior calendar year energy costs and projected energy sales for the twelve-month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an energy cost rate, which is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy cost for the prior calendar year.  The energy cost recovery rider tariff also allows an interim rate request depending upon the level of over- or under-recovery of fuel and purchased energy costs.  In December 2007 the APSC issued an order stating that Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider will remain in effect, and any future termination of the rider would be subject to eighteen months advance notice by the APSC, which would occur following notice and hearing.


Production Cost Allocation Rider

Entergy Arkansas has in place an APSC-approved production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of System Agreement proceedings.

Entergy Louisiana


Fuel Recovery


Entergy Louisiana’s rate schedules include a fuel adjustment clause designed to recover the cost of fuel and purchased power costs.  The fuel adjustment clause contains a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense and related carrying charges arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings related to audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.


To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Louisiana received approval from the LPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Louisiana hedgeshistorically hedged approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year.  The hedge quantity iswas reviewed on an annual basis. In January 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC to suspend these seasonal hedging programs and implement financial hedges with terms up to five years for a portion of its natural gas exposure. A decision is expectedexposure, which was approved in November 2018.


Entergy Louisiana’s gas rates include a purchased gas adjustment clause based on estimated gas costs for the billing month adjusted by a surcharge or credit that arises from an annual reconciliation of fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.


To help stabilize retailRetail Rates - Gas

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas costs,rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana received approval fromsubmitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility for its gas purchased for resale throughrecover the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Louisiana hedges approximately one-half of the projected natural gas volumes used to serve its natural gas customers for November through March.  The hedge quantity is reviewed on an annual basis.


235
245

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Dueinvestment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to higher fuel costsinclude actual investment incurred for the operating monthprior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of January 2018 resulting in part from recent cold weather, higher Henry Hub prices, and an increase in total fuel and purchased power costs, Entergy Louisiana plans to cap the average fuel adjustment charge to be billed in March 2018 at $0.03060 per kWh and to defer billing of all fuel costsany earnings in excess of the capped amountsupper end of the earnings band as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by including such coststhe LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the over- or under-recovery account.infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.


Storm Cost Recovery


See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s filings to recover storm-related costs.


Other


In March 2016 the LPSC opened two dockets to examine, on a generic basis, issues that it identified in connection with its review of Cleco Corporation’s acquisition by third party investors.  The first docket is captioned “In re: Investigation of double leveraging issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities,” and the second is captioned “In re: Investigation of tax structure issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities.”  In April 2016 the LPSC clarified that the concerns giving rise to the two dockets arose as a result of its review of the structure of the recently-approved Cleco-Macquarie transaction and that the specific intent of the directives is to seek more information regarding intra-corporate debt financing of a utility’s capital structure as well as the use of investment tax credits to mitigate the tax obligation at the parent level of a consolidated entity.  No schedule has been set for either docket, and limited discovery has occurred.


In December 2019 an LPSC commissioner issued an unopposed directive to staff to research customer-centered options for all customer classes, as well as other regulatory environments, and recommend a plan for how to ensure customers are the focus. There was no opposition to the directive from other commissioners but several remarked that the intent of the directive was not initiated to pursue retail open access. In furtherance of the directive, the LPSC issued a notice of the opening of a docket to conduct a rulemaking to research and evaluate customer-centered options for all electric customer classes as well as other regulatory environments in January 2020.

Entergy Mississippi


Fuel Recovery


Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include energy cost recovery riders to recover fuel and purchased power costs.  The energy cost rate for each calendar year is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery of the energy costs as of the 12-month period ended September 30.  Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to annual audits conducted pursuant to the authority of the MPSC.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Mississippi received approval from the MPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Mississippi hedges approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year.  The hedge quantity is reviewed on an annual basis.


246

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Storm Cost Recovery


See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings regarding recovery of Entergy Mississippi’s storm-related costs.


Formula Rate Plan


In August 2012 the MPSC opened inquiries to review whether the current formulaic methodology used to calculate the return on common equity in both Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan and Mississippi Power Company’s annual formula rate plan was still appropriate or could be improved to better serve the public interest. The intent of this inquiry and review was for informational purposes only; the evaluation of any recommendations for changes to the existing methodology would take place in a general rate case or in the existing formula rate plan docket.proceeding. In March 2013 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed its consultant’s report which noted the return on common equity estimation methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company are commonly used throughout the electric utility industry. The report suggested ways in which the methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company might be improved, but did not recommend specific changes in the return on common equity formulas

236

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


or calculations at that time. In June 2014 the MPSC expanded the scope of the August 2012 inquiry to study the merits of adopting a uniform formula rate plan that could be applied, where possible in whole or in part, to both Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company in order to achieve greater consistency in the plans. The MPSC directed the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff to investigate and review Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan rider schedule and Mississippi Power Company’s Performance Evaluation Plan by considering the merits and deficiencies and possibilities for improvement of each and then to propose a uniform formula rate plan that, where possible, could be applicable to both companies. No procedural schedule has been set. In October 2014 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff conducted a public technical conference to discuss performance benchmarking and its potential application to the electric utilities’ formula rate plans. The docket remains open.


Entergy New Orleans


Fuel Recovery


Entergy New Orleans’s electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment tariff designed to reflect no more than targeted fuel and purchased power costs, adjusted by a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel and purchased power costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.


Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges.


To help stabilize gas costs, Entergy New Orleans seeks approval annually from the City Council to continue implementation of its natural gas hedging program consistent with the City Council’s stated policy objectives.  The program uses financial instruments to hedge exposure to volatility in the wholesale price of natural gas purchased to serve Entergy New Orleans gas customers.  Entergy New Orleans hedges up to 25% of actual gas sales made during the winter months.

Due to higher fuel costs associated in part with the extended Grand Gulf outage and the partially simultaneous Union Power Block 1 planned outage, for the December 2016, January 2017, and February 2017 billing months, the City Council authorized Entergy New Orleans to cap the fuel adjustment charge billed to customers at $0.035 per kWh and to defer billing of all fuel costs in excess of the capped amount by including such costs in the over- or under-recovery account.

Due to higher fuel costs for the operating month of January 2018 resulting in part from recent cold weather, higher Henry Hub prices, and an increase in total fuel and purchased power costs associated in part with certain plant outages, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to cap the fuel adjustment charge to be billed in March 2018 to non-transmission Entergy New Orleans legacy customers and Entergy New Orleans Algiers customers at $0.035323 per kWh and $0.025446 per kWh, respectively. Entergy New Orleans has also proposed to cap the fuel adjustment charge to be billed in March 2018 for Entergy New Orleans legacy transmission customers at $0.034609 per kWh and to defer billing of all fuel costs in excess of the capped amount by including such costs in the over- or under-recovery account.


Storm Cost Recovery


See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s efforts to recover storm-related costs.



237
247

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Energy Efficiency Programs

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  The rate settlement provided an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provided a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In January 2015 the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart program from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted and when new rates from the 2018 combined rate case, which includes a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect. In December 2017 the City Council approved an energy efficiency cost recovery rider as an interim funding mechanism for Energy Smart, subject to verification that no additional funding sources exist. In June 2018 the City Council also approved a resolution recommending that Entergy New Orleans allocate approximately $13.5 million of benefits resulting from the Tax Act to Energy Smart. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2020 through December 2022.

Entergy Texas


Fuel Recovery


Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including interest, that are not included in base rates.  Semi-annual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in fuel mix.  The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT.  The PUCT fuel cost proceedings are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements.


At the PUCT’s April 2013 open meeting, the PUCT Commissioners discussed their view that a purchased power capacity rider was good public policy. The PUCT issued an order in May 2013 adopting the rule allowing for a purchased power capacity rider, subject to an offsetting adjustment for load growth. The rule, as adopted, also includes a process for obtaining pre-approval by the PUCT of purchased power agreements. Entergy Texas has not exercised the option to recover its capacity costs under the new rider mechanism, but will continue to evaluate the benefits of utilizing the new rider to recover future capacity costs.

Electric Industry Restructuring


In June 2009, a law was enacted in Texas that required Entergy Texas to cease all activities relating to Entergy Texas’s transition to competition.  The law allows Entergy Texas to remain a part of the SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC) Region, although it does not prevent Entergy Texas from joining another power region.  The law provides that proceedings to certify a power region that Entergy Texas belongs to as a qualified power region can be initiated by the PUCT, or on motion by another party, when the conditions supporting such a proceeding
248

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

exist.  Under the law, the PUCT may not approve a transition to competition plan for Entergy Texas until the expiration of four years from the PUCT’s certification of Entergy Texas’s power region.


The law also contains provisions that allow Entergy Texas to take advantage of a cost recovery mechanism that permits annual filings for the recovery of reasonable and necessary expenditures for transmission infrastructure improvement and changes in wholesale transmission charges.  This mechanism was previously available to other non-ERCOT Texas utility companies, but not to Entergy Texas.


The law further amended already existing law that had required Entergy Texas to propose for PUCT approval a tariff to allow eligible customers the ability to contract for competitive generation.  The amending language in the law provides, among other things, that:  1) the tariff shall not be implemented in a manner that harms the sustainability or competitiveness of manufacturers who choose not to participate in the tariff; 2) Entergy Texas shall “purchase competitive generation service, selected by the customer, and provide the generation at retail to the customer”;customer;” and 3) Entergy Texas shall provide and price transmission service and ancillary services under that tariff at a rate that is unbundled from its cost of service.  The law directs that the PUCT may not issue an order on the tariff that is contrary to an applicable decision, rule, or policy statement of a federal regulatory agency having jurisdiction.


Entergy Texas and the other parties to the PUCT proceeding to determine the design of the competitive generation tariff were involved in negotiations throughout 2011 and 2012 with the objective of resolving as many disputed issues as possible regarding the tariff.  The PUCT determined that unrecovered costs that couldmay be recovered through the rider consist only of those costs necessary to implement and administer the competitive generation program and do not include lost revenues or embedded generation costs.  The PUCT also ruled that the amount of customer load that may be included in the competitive generation service program is limited to 115 MW.  After additional negotiations, and ultimately the scheduling of a hearing to resolve remaining contested issues, the PUCT issued the order approving the competitive generation service rider in July 2013. Entergy Texas filed for rehearing of the PUCT’s July 2013 order, which the PUCT denied. Entergy Texas has since filed its appeal of that PUCT order to the Travis County District Court, which found in favor of the PUCT in an order issued in October 2014. In November 2014, Entergy Texas appealed the District Court’s order which moves the appeal to the Third Court of Appeals. Entergy

238

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Texas and opposing parties filed briefs and responses in the first quarter 2015. Oral argument was held in May 2015. In March 2016 the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s ruling favoring the PUCT. In May 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the Texas Supreme Court a petition for review of the Court of Appeals ruling. In January 2017, Entergy Texas filed its petitioner’s brief on the merits with the Texas Supreme Court. In June 2017 the Texas Supreme Court denied Entergy Texas’s petition in this matter.


In September 2011 the PUCT adopted a proposed rule implementing a distribution cost recovery factor to recover capital and capital-related costs related to distribution infrastructure.  The distribution cost recovery factor permits utilities once per year to implement an increase or decrease in rates above or below amounts reflected in base rates to reflect depreciation expense, federal income tax and other taxes, and return on investment.  The distribution cost recovery factor rider may be changed a maximum of four times between base rate cases.


In September 2019 the PUCT initiated a rulemaking to promulgate a generation cost recovery factor rule, implementing legislation passed in the 2019 Texas legislative session intended to allow electric utilities to recover generation investments between base rate proceedings.  The PUCT approved the final rule in July 2020.

Franchises


Entergy Arkansas holds exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 308 incorporated cities and towns in Arkansas.  These franchises are unlimited in duration and continue unless the municipalities purchase the utility property.  In Arkansas franchises are considered to be contracts and, therefore, are terminable pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement and applicable statutes.


Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 175 incorporated municipalities and in the unincorporated areas of approximately 59 parishes of Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide natural gas service to customers in the City of Baton Rouge and in East Baton Rouge Parish.  Municipal franchise agreement terms range from 25 to 60 years while parish franchise terms range from 25 to 99 years.


Entergy Mississippi has received from the MPSC certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide electric service to areas within 45 counties, including a number of municipalities, in western Mississippi.  Under Mississippi statutory law, such certificates are exclusive.  Entergy Mississippi may continue to serve in such municipalities upon payment of a statutory franchise fee, regardless of whether an original municipal franchise is still in existence.


249

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans provides electric and gas service in the City of New Orleans pursuant to indeterminate permits set forth in city ordinances.  These ordinances contain a continuing option for the City of New Orleans to purchase Entergy New Orleans’s electric and gas utility properties.


Entergy Texas holds a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PUCT to provide electric service to areas within approximately 27 counties in eastern Texas, and holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 68 incorporated municipalities.  Entergy Texas typically obtains 25-year franchise agreements as existing agreements expire.  Entergy Texas’s electric franchises expire during 2018-2058.over the period 2020-2058.


The business of System Energy is limited to wholesale power sales.  It has no distribution franchises.



239

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Property and Other Generation Resources


Owned Generating Stations


The total capability of the generating stations owned and leased by the Utility operating companies and System Energy as of December 31, 2017,2020, is indicated below:
 Owned and Leased Capability MW(a)
CompanyTotalGas/OilNuclearCoalHydroSolar
Entergy Arkansas5,175 2,091 1,817 1,194 73 — 
Entergy Louisiana11,317 8,827 2,144 346 — — 
Entergy Mississippi3,347 2,929 — 416 — 
Entergy New Orleans665 638 — — — 27 
Entergy Texas2,260 2,005 — 255 — — 
System Energy1,256 — 1,256 — — — 
Total24,020 16,490 5,217 2,211 73 29 
  Owned and Leased Capability MW(a)
Company Total Gas/Oil Nuclear Coal Hydro Solar
Entergy Arkansas 5,217
 2,136
 1,821
 1,189
 71
 
Entergy Louisiana 9,099
 6,603
 2,136
 360
 
 
Entergy Mississippi 3,359
 2,944
 
 414
 
 1
Entergy New Orleans 492
 491
 
 
 
 1
Entergy Texas 2,331
 2,065
 
 266
 
 
System Energy 1,271
 
 1,271
 
 
 
Total 21,769
 14,239
 5,228
 2,229
 71
 2


(a)“Owned and Leased Capability” is the dependable load carrying capability as demonstrated under actual operating conditions based on the primary fuel (assuming no curtailments) that each station was designed to utilize.
(a)“Owned and Leased Capability” is the dependable load carrying capability as demonstrated under actual operating conditions based on the primary fuel (assuming no curtailments) that each station was designed to utilize.


Summer peak load for the Utility has averaged 21,53321,591 MW over the previous decade.


The Utility operating companies’ load and capacity projections are reviewed periodically to assess the need and timing for additional generating capacity and interconnections. These reviews consider existing and projected demand, the availability and price of power, the location of new load, the economy, environmental regulations,Entergy’s clean energy and other public policy goals, environmental regulations, and the age and condition of Entergy’s existing infrastructure.


The Utility operating companies’ long-term resource strategy (Portfolio Transformation Strategy) calls for the bulk of capacity needs to be met through long-term resources, whether owned or contracted. Over the past decade, the Portfolio Transformation Strategy has resulted in the addition of about 6,8008,801 MW of new long-term resources and the deactivation of over 5,200about 4,664 MW of legacy generation. As MISO market participants, the Utility operating companies also participate in MISO’s Day Ahead and Real Time Energy and Ancillary Services markets to economically dispatch generation and purchase energy to serve customers reliably and at the lowest reasonable cost.


250

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Generation Resources


RFP Procurements


The Utility operating companies from time to time issue requests for proposals (RFP) to procure supply-side resources from sources other than the spot market to meet the unique regional needs of the Utility operating companies. The RFPs issued by the Utility operating companies have sought resources needed to meet near-term MISO reliability requirements as well as longer-termlong-term requirements through a broad range of wholesale power products, including limited-term (1 to 3 years) and long-term contractual products and asset acquisitions. The RFP process has resulted in selections or acquisitions, including, among other things:


Entergy Louisiana’s June 2005 purchase of the 718 MW, gas-fired Perryville plant, of which 35% of the output is sold to Entergy Texas;
Entergy Arkansas’s September 2008 purchase of the 789 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Ouachita Generating Facility. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, owns one-third of the facility;

240

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Entergy Arkansas’s November 2012 purchase of the 620 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Hot Spring Energy facility;
Entergy Mississippi’s November 2012 purchase of the 450 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Hinds Energy facility;
Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 560 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Ninemile 6 generating facility at its existing Ninemile Point electric generating station. The facility reached commercial operation in December 2014;
Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 980 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (previously referred to as the St. Charles generating facilityfacility) at its existing Little Gypsy electric generating station. Entergy Louisiana received regulatory approval from the LPSCThe facility began commercial operation in December 2016 and the facility is scheduled to be in service by mid-2019;May 2019;
Entergy Texas’s construction of the 993 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Montgomery County generating facilityPower Station at its existing Lewis Creek electric generating station. Entergy Texas received regulatory approval from the PUCTThe facility began commercial operation in July 2017 and the facility is scheduled to be in service by mid-2021; andJanuary 2021;
Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 994 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Lake Charles generating facility at its existing Nelson electric generating station.station site. The facility began commercial operation in March 2020;
In October 2018, Entergy LouisianaMississippi signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Sunflower County, Mississippi. Entergy Mississippi received regulatory approval from the LPSCMPSC in July 2017April 2020, and the facility is scheduled to be in service by mid-2020.early 2022;

In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 800 acres in White County near Searcy, Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas received regulatory approval from the APSC in April 2020 and the facility is scheduled to be in service by the end of 2021;
Entergy New Orleans received regulatory approval in August 2019 to construct the New Orleans Solar Station (a 20 MW self-build solar project) located at the NASA Michoud Facility.The facility was placed in service in December 2020;
In June 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Lee County, Arkansas. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2022;
In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 180 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,500 acres in Crittenden County, Arkansas. In January 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023; and
In June 2020, Entergy Texas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,200 acres in Liberty County near Dayton, Texas.In September 2020, Entergy Texas filed a petition with the PUCT seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals.Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023.

251

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The RFP process has also resulted in the selection, or confirmation of the economic merits of, long-term purchased power agreements (PPAs), including, among others:


River BendBend’s 30% life-of-unit PPA between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans for 100 MW related to Entergy Louisiana’s unregulated portion of the River Bend nuclear station, which portion was formerly owned by Cajun;
Entergy ArkansasArkansas’s wholesale base load capacity life-of-unit PPAs executed in 2003 totaling approximately 220 MW between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana (110 MW) and between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy New Orleans (110 MW) related to the sale of a portion of Entergy Arkansas’s coal and nuclear base load resources (which had not been included in Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates);
In December 2009, Entergy Texas and Exelon Generation Company, LLC executed a 10-year agreement for 150-300 MW from the Frontier Generating Station located in Grimes County, Texas;
In May 2011, Entergy Texas and Calpine Energy Services, L.P. executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana purchases 50% of the facility’s capacity and energy from Entergy Texas. In July 2014, LS Power purchased the Carville Energy Center and replaced Calpine Energy Services as the counterparty to the agreement;
In September 2012, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 28 MW, with the potential to purchase an additional 9 MW when available, from Rain CII Carbon LLC’s petpetroleum coke calcining facility in Sulphur, Louisiana. The facility began commercial operation in May 2013. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with the facility;
In March 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 8.5 MW from Agrilectric Power Partners, LP’s refurbished rice hull-fueled electric generation facility located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with Agrilectric;
In September 2013, Entergy Louisiana executed a 10-year agreement with TX LFG Energy, LP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Montauk Energy Holdings, LLC, to purchase approximately 3 MW from its landfill gas-fueled power generation facility located in Cleveland, Texas;
Entergy Mississippi’s cost-based purchase, beginning in January 2013, of 90 MW from Entergy Arkansas’s share of Grand Gulf (only 60 MW of this PPA came through the RFP process). Cost recovery for the 90 MW was approved by the MPSC in January 2013;
In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas and Stuttgart Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 81 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generation facility located near Stuttgart, Arkansas. The APSC has approved the project and the expected commercial operation date isdeliveries pursuant to that agreement commenced in June 2019;2018;

241

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and LS Power executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. The transaction has received regulatory approval and will begin in June 2022;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and Occidental Chemical Corporation executed a 10-year agreement for 500 MW from the Taft Cogeneration facility located in Hahnville, Louisiana. The transaction has received regulatory approval and will beginbegan in June 2018; and
In June 2017, Entergy Arkansas and Chicot Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 100 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Chicot County, Arkansas. The transaction received regulatory approval and the PPA began in November 2020;
In February 2018, Entergy Arkansas filedLouisiana and LA3 West Baton Rouge, LLC (Capital Region Solar project) executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in February 2019 and the PPA began in October 2017.2020;

In July 2018, Entergy New Orleans and St. James Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 20 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021;
In August 2018, Entergy Louisiana and South Alexander Development I, LLC executed a five-year agreement for 5 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The PPA began in December 2020 and received regulatory approval in January 2021;
252

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

In February 2019, Entergy New Orleans and Iris Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Washington Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021; and
In August 2020, Entergy Texas and Umbriel Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 150 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Polk County, Texas.The PPA is expected to start when the facility reaches commercial operation in 2023.

In April 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Texas, issued an RFP for combined-cycle gas turbine capacity and energy resources. The RFP was seeking up to 1,000 MW - 1,200 MW of capacity, capacity-related benefits, energy, other electric products, and environmental attributes, if any, from a single generation resource located in the “Eastern Region” of Entergy Texas’s service area. In December 2020, Entergy Texas posted notice that it has elected to proceed with the self-build alternative, Orange County Power Station. The self-build alternative will be conditioned on receipt of required internal and regulatory approvals.

In June 2016,2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Louisiana, issued an RFP for long-term renewable generationsolar photovoltaic resources. The RFP was seeking up300 MW of energy, capacity, capacity-related benefits, other electric products, and environmental attributes from eligible new-build solar photovoltaic generation resources. In December 2020, Entergy Louisiana concluded evaluations of the RFP. Three proposals have been placed on the primary selection list and two proposals have been placed on the secondary selection list. Negotiations are currently in progress.

In January 2021, Entergy Texas provided notice that it intends to issue an RFP for solar generation resources. The RFP is seeking a minimum of 200 MW through a combination of renewable resourcesbuild-own-transfer agreements, self-build alternatives, and power purchase agreements that couldcan provide cost-effective energy supply, fuel diversity, and other benefits to Entergy Texas customers. Two proposals were placed in the primary selection list and the transactions are currently in negotiations.


In July 2016, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy New Orleans, issued an RFP for long-term renewable generation resources. The RFP was seeking up to 20 MW of renewable resources that could provide increased depth and diversity to Entergy New Orleans’s generation resource portfolio. In May 2017, Entergy New Orleans selected three proposals, including a 5 MW self-build option for an aggregated solar photovoltaic resource located within Orleans Parish, Louisiana. In October 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed an application seeking City Council approval for the self-build option, which is pending before the City Council. Following unsuccessful negotiations related to the other proposals selected in May 2017, Entergy New Orleans suspended negotiations in November 2017 and invited bidders to re-submit proposals with current information. From these submissions, in January 2018, Entergy New Orleans selected three proposals with an anticipated total capacity of 90 MW. The updated proposals selected are in addition to the self-build option.

Natural Gas

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans also distribute natural gas to retail customers in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and New Orleans, Louisiana, respectively. Gas transferred to customers is measured by a meter at the customer’s property. Entergy issues monthly invoices to customers at rates approved by regulators for the volume of gas transferred to date.

233

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Competitive Businesses Revenues

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment derives almost all of its revenue from sales of electric power and capacity produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. The majority of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues are from Entergy’s nuclear power plants located in the northern United States. Entergy issues monthly invoices to the counterparties for these electric sales at the respective contracted or ISO market rate of electricity and related services provided during the previous month.

Almost all of the Palisades nuclear plant output is sold under a 15-year PPA with Consumers Energy, executed as part of the acquisition of the plant in 2007 and expiring in April 2022. Prices under the original PPA range from $43.50/MWh in 2007 to $61.50/MWh in 2022, and the average price under the PPA is $51/MWh. Entergy executed an additional PPA to cover the period from the expiration of the original PPA through final shutdown in May 2022, at a price of $24.14/MWh. Entergy issues monthly invoices to Consumers Energy for electric sales based on the actual output of electricity and related services provided during the previous month at the contract price.  The PPA was at below-market prices at the time of the acquisition and Entergy amortizes a liability to revenue over the life of the agreement.  The amount amortized each period is based upon the present value, calculated at the date of acquisition, of each year’s difference between revenue under the agreement and revenue based on estimated market prices.  Amounts amortized to revenue were $11 million in 2020, $10 million in 2019, and $6 million in 2018.  Amounts to be amortized to revenue through the remaining life of the agreement will be approximately $12 million in 2021 and $5 million in 2022.

Practical Expedients and Exceptions

Entergy has elected not to disclose the value of unsatisfied performance obligations for contracts with an original expected term of one year or less, or for revenue recognized in an amount equal to what Entergy has the right to bill the customer for services performed.

Most of Entergy’s contracts, except in a few cases where there are defined minimums or stated terms, are on demand. This results in customer bills that vary each month based on an approved tariff and usage. Entergy imposes monthly or annual minimum requirements on some customers primarily as credit and cost recovery guarantees and not as pricing for unsatisfied performance obligations. These minimums typically expire after the initial term or when specified costs have been recovered. The minimum amounts are part of each month’s bill and recognized as revenue accordingly. Some of the subsidiaries within the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment have operations and maintenance services contracts that have fixed components and terms longer than one year. The total fixed consideration related to these unsatisfied performance obligations, however, is not material to Entergy revenues.

Recovery of Fuel Costs

Entergy’s Utility operating companies’ rate schedules include either fuel adjustment clauses or fixed fuel factors, which allow either current recovery in billings to customers or deferral of fuel costs until the costs are billed to customers. Where the fuel component of revenues is based on a pre-determined fuel cost (fixed fuel factor), the fuel factor remains in effect until changed as part of a general rate case, fuel reconciliation, or fixed fuel factor filing. System Energy’s operating revenues are intended to recover from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans operating expenses and capital costs attributable to Grand Gulf. The capital costs are based on System Energy’s common equity funds allocable to its net investment in Grand Gulf, plus System Energy’s effective interest cost for its debt allocable to its investment in Grand Gulf.

Taxes Imposed on Revenue-Producing Transactions

Governmental authorities assess taxes that are both imposed on and concurrent with a specific revenue-producing transaction between a seller and a customer, including, but not limited to, sales, use, value added, and
234

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

some excise taxes.  Entergy presents these taxes on a net basis, excluding them from revenues.

Allowance for doubtful accounts

The allowance for doubtful accounts reflects Entergy’s best estimate of expected losses on its accounts receivable balances. Due to the essential nature of utility services, Entergy has historically experienced a low rate of default on its accounts receivables. Due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on customer receivables, however, Entergy recorded an increase in its allowance for doubtful accounts, as shown below:
EntergyEntergy
Arkansas
Entergy
Louisiana
Entergy
Mississippi
Entergy
New
Orleans
Entergy
Texas
 (In Millions)
Balance as of December 31, 2019$7.4 $1.2 $1.9 $0.6 $3.2 $0.5 
Provisions (a)109.0 16.2 43.7 18.8 14.1 16.2 
Write-offs(8.6)(1.8)(3.5)(1.2)(1.0)(1.1)
Recoveries9.9 2.7 3.6 1.3 1.1 1.2 
Balance as of December 31, 2020$117.7 $18.3 $45.7 $19.5 $17.4 $16.8 
(a)Provisions include estimated incremental bad debt expenses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic of $87.1 million for Entergy, $10.5 million for Entergy Arkansas, $36 million for Entergy Louisiana, $15.5 million for Entergy Mississippi, $12.2 million for Entergy New Orleans, and $12.9 million for Entergy Texas that have been deferred as regulatory assets. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the COVID-19 orders issued by retail regulators.
The allowance for currently expected credit losses is calculated as the historical rate of customer write-offs multiplied by the current accounts receivable balance, taking into account the length of time the receivable balances have been outstanding. Although the rate of customer write-offs has historically experienced minimal variation, management monitors the current condition of individual customer accounts to manage collections and ensure bad debt expense is recorded in a timely manner.

235

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




NOTE 20.  QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED) (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

Operating results for the four quarters of 2020 and 2019 for Entergy Corporation and subsidiaries were:
 Operating RevenuesOperating IncomeConsolidated Net IncomeNet Income Attributable to Entergy Corporation
 (In Thousands)
2020:  
First Quarter$2,427,179 $399,756 $123,294 $118,714 
Second Quarter$2,412,788 $439,311 $365,113 $360,533 
Third Quarter$2,903,568 $778,016 $525,699 $521,119 
Fourth Quarter$2,370,101 $152,112 $392,547 $387,968 
2019:  
First Quarter$2,609,584 $283,254 $258,646 $254,537 
Second Quarter$2,666,209 $338,775 $240,533 $236,424 
Third Quarter$3,140,575 $519,929 $369,459 $365,240 
Fourth Quarter$2,462,305 $248,539 $389,606 $385,025 

Earnings per average common share
 20202019
 BasicDilutedBasicDiluted
First Quarter$0.59 $0.59 $1.34 $1.32 
Second Quarter$1.80 $1.79 $1.22 $1.22 
Third Quarter$2.60 $2.59 $1.84 $1.82 
Fourth Quarter$1.95 $1.93 $1.96 $1.94 

Results of operations for 2020 include resolution of the 2014-2015 IRS audit, which resulted in a reduction in deferred income tax expense of $230 million that includes a $396 million reduction in deferred income tax expense at Utility related to the basis of assets contributed in the 2015 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana business combination, including the recognition of previously uncertain tax positions, and deferred income tax expense of $105 million at Entergy Wholesale Commodities and $61 million at Parent and Other Procurements From Third Partiesresulting from the revaluation of net operating losses as a result of the release of the reserves. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the IRS audit resolution.


Results of operations for 2019 include: 1) a loss of $190 million ($156 million net-of-tax) as a result of the sale of the Pilgrim plant in August 2019; 2) a $156 million reduction in income tax expense recognized by Entergy Wholesale Commodities as a result of an internal restructuring; and 3) impairment charges of $100 million ($79 million net-of-tax) due to costs being charged directly to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired value of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to exit the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant power business. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the internal restructuring. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale of the Pilgrim plant.



236

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

The business of the Utility operating companies is subject to seasonal fluctuations with the peak periods occurring during the third quarter.  Operating results for the Registrant Subsidiaries for the four quarters of 2020 and 2019 were:
Operating Revenues
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
2020:      
First Quarter$481,912 $930,647 $293,922 $149,302 $339,336 $130,664 
Second Quarter$491,767 $1,011,652 $297,954 $147,343 $372,194 $126,049 
Third Quarter$644,389 $1,120,022 $356,496 $182,064 $494,922 $148,517 
Fourth Quarter$466,426 $1,007,541 $299,482 $155,132 $380,673 $90,228 
2019:      
First Quarter$545,812 $959,330 $282,244 $163,194 $340,474 $140,104 
Second Quarter$542,929 $1,106,317 $302,737 $175,793 $363,580 $139,009 
Third Quarter$687,526 $1,231,677 $398,732 $194,204 $442,877 $145,472 
Fourth Quarter$483,327 $987,851 $339,330 $153,032 $342,024 $148,825 

Operating Income
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
2020:      
First Quarter$67,835 $166,779 $41,181 $12,091 $36,060 $35,309 
Second Quarter$107,949 $256,412 $67,705 $7,602 $56,443 $31,236 
Third Quarter$217,648 $324,496 $93,843 $32,322 $108,306 $48,896 
Fourth Quarter$9,126 $117,134 $33,466 $12,397 $46,040 $1,303 
2019:      
First Quarter$42,471 $153,944 $30,792 $16,136 $16,741 $31,368 
Second Quarter$69,774 $241,520 $45,607 $17,509 $36,022 $24,300 
Third Quarter$182,176 $336,754 $87,024 $28,876 $69,510 $29,086 
Fourth Quarter$32,576 $164,424 $40,331 $6,164 $24,229 $30,231 

237

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Net Income
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
2020:      
First Quarter$44,595 $189,396 $22,526 $11,186 $32,707 $28,513 
Second Quarter$60,170 $170,459 $38,893 $4,929 $46,868 $28,991 
Third Quarter$135,843 $223,466 $58,589 $19,450 $92,164 $31,064 
Fourth Quarter$4,624 $499,031 $20,575 $13,773 $43,334 $10,563 
2019:      
First Quarter$39,121 $127,633 $15,398 $9,023 $21,342 $23,578 
Second Quarter$50,299 $183,084 $26,667 $13,003 $38,936 $24,472 
Third Quarter$149,716 $255,260 $56,237 $24,908 $73,224 $25,031 
Fourth Quarter$23,828 $125,560 $21,623 $5,695 $25,895 $26,039 

Earnings Applicable to Common Equity/Stock
Entergy Texas
(In Thousands)
2020:
First Quarter$32,237 
Second Quarter$46,397 
Third Quarter$91,694 
Fourth Quarter$42,863 
2019:
First Quarter$21,342 
Second Quarter$38,936 
Third Quarter$73,114 
Fourth Quarter$25,425 


238

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy
RISK FACTORS SUMMARY

Entergy’s business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that could affect its ability to successfully implement its business strategy and affect its financial results. Carefully consider all of the information in this report and, in particular, the following principal risks and all of the other specific factors described in Item 1A. of this report, “Risk Factors,” before deciding whether to invest in Entergy or the Registrant Subsidiaries.

Utility Regulatory Risks

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and responsive measures taken are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.
The terms and conditions of service, including electric and gas rates, of the Utility operating companies and System Energy are determined through regulatory approval proceedings that can be lengthy and subject to appeal, potentially resulting in lengthy litigation and uncertainty as to ultimate results.
The Utility operating companies have also made resource acquisitions outsiderecover fuel, purchased power, and associated costs through rate mechanisms that are subject to risks of delay or disallowance in regulatory proceedings.
Entergy’s business could experience adverse effects related to changes to state or federal legislation or regulation.
There remains uncertainty regarding the effect of the RFP process, including Entergy Mississippi’s January 2006 acquisitiontermination of the 480 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Attala power plant; Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s March 2008 acquisition ofSystem Agreement on the 322 MW, simple-cycle, gas-fired Calcasieu Generating Facility; Entergy Louisiana’s April 2011 acquisition of the 580 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Acadia Energy Center Unit 2; and Entergy Arkansas’s (Power Block 2), Entergy Louisiana’s (Power Blocks 3 and 4), and Entergy New Orleans’s (Power Block 1) March 2016 acquisitions of the 1,980 MW (summer rating), natural gas-fired, combined-cycle gas turbine Union Power Station power blocks, each rated at 495 MW (summer rating). Utility operating companies.
The Utility operating companies have also entered into various limited-are subject to risks associated with participation in the MISO markets and long-term contractsthe allocation of transmission upgrade costs.
A delay or failure in recent yearsrecovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred as a result of bilateral negotiations.

The Washington Parish Energy Center is a 361 MW natural gas-fired peaking power plant under advanced development approximately 60 miles north of New Orleanssevere weather (including from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta) could have material effects on a partially developed site Calpine has owned since 2001. This simple-cycle power plant is proposed to be developed pursuant to an agreement with Entergy Louisiana, which will purchase the plant upon completion in 2021 for a fixed payment to reimburse construction costs plus an associated premium. In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC seeking certification of the plant. The application is pending.

Interconnections

The Utility operating companies’ generating units are interconnected by a transmission system operating at various voltages up to 500 kV.  These generating units consist primarily of steam-electric production facilities and are provided dispatch instructions by MISO. Entergy’sthose Utility operating companies are MISO market participantsaffected by severe weather.

Nuclear Operating, Shutdown, and are interconnectedRegulatory Risks

The results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities could be materially affected by the following:
failure to consistently operate their nuclear power plants at high capacity factors;
refueling outages that last longer than anticipated or unplanned outages;
risks related to the purchase of uranium fuel (and its conversion, enrichment, and fabrication);
the risk that the NRC will change or modify its regulations, suspend or revoke their licenses, or increase oversight of their nuclear plants;
risks and costs related to operating and maintaining their nuclear power plants;
the costs associated with many neighboring utilities.  MISO is an essential linkthe storage of the spent nuclear fuel, as well as the costs of and their ability to fully decommission their nuclear power plants;
the potential requirement to pay substantial retrospective premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act in the safe, cost-effective deliveryevent of electrica nuclear incident, and losses not covered by insurance;
the risk that the decommissioning trust fund assets for the nuclear power across allplants may not be adequate to meet decommissioning obligations if market performance and other changes decrease the value of assets in the decommissioning trusts; and
new or parts of 15 U.S. statesexisting safety concerns regarding operating nuclear power plants and the Canadian province of Manitoba. As a Regional Transmission Organization, MISO assures consumers of unbiased regional grid managementnuclear fuel.
Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ power plants are subject to impairment charges in certain circumstances and open accessits nuclear power plants are exposed to the transmissionprice risk.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to substantial governmental regulation and may be adversely affected by legislative, regulatory, or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

242
239

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy
General Business Risks

Entergy and the Utility operating companies depend on access to the capital markets and, at times, may face potential liquidity constraints, which could make it more difficult to handle future contingencies.  Disruptions in the capital and credit markets may adversely affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to meet liquidity needs, access capital and operate and grow their businesses, and the cost of capital.
A downgrade in Entergy Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ credit ratings could, among other things, negatively affect Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to access capital.
Changes in tax legislation and taxation as well as the inherent difficulty in quantifying potential tax effects of business decisions could negatively impact Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.
Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to successfully execute on their business strategies, including their ability to complete capital projects, other capital improvements, and strategic transactions is subject to significant risks, and, as a result, they may be unable to achieve some or all of the anticipated results of such strategies.
Failure to attract, retain, and manage an appropriately qualified workforce could negatively affect Entergy or its subsidiaries’ results of operations.
The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs (i) to fulfill their obligations related to environmental and other matters or (ii) related to reliability standards.
Weather, economic conditions, technological developments, and other factors may have a material impact on electricity and gas usage and otherwise materially affect the Utility operating companies’ results of operations.
Entergy could be negatively affected by the effects of climate change and environmental and regulatory obligations intended to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions or increase clean or renewable energy requirements or to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions.
Entergy is dependent on the continued and future availability and quality of water for cooling, process, and sanitary uses.
Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be adequately hedged against changes in commodity prices.
The Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties may not meet their obligations.
Market performance and other changes may decrease the value of benefit plan assets, which then could require additional funding and result in increased benefit plan costs.
The litigation environment in the states in which certain Entergy subsidiaries operate poses a significant risk to those businesses.
Terrorist attacks, cyber attacks, system failures, or data breaches of Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ or its suppliers’ technology systems may adversely affect Entergy’s results of operations.
The effect of higher purchased gas cost charges to customers taking gas service may adversely affect Entergy New Orleans’s results of operations and liquidity.
System Energy owns and, through an affiliate, operates a single nuclear generating facility, and it is dependent on sales to affiliated companies for all of its revenues. Certain contractual arrangements relating to System Energy, the affiliated companies, and these revenues are the subject of ongoing litigation and regulatory proceedings.
As a holding company, Entergy Corporation depends on cash distributions from its subsidiaries to meet its debt service and other financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock.

240

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy




facilities under MISO’s functional supervision. In addition, the Utility operating companies are membersENTERGY’S BUSINESS

Entergy is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations.  Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 MW of the SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). SERC is a nonprofit corporation responsible for promotingelectric generating capacity, including approximately 8,000 MW of nuclear power. Entergy delivers electricity to 3.0 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and improving the reliability, adequacy,Texas.  Entergy had annual revenues of $10.1 billion in 2020 and critical infrastructure of the bulk power supply systems in all or portions of 16 central and southeastern states.SERC serveshad more than 13,000 employees as a regional entity with delegated authority from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) for the purpose of proposing and enforcing reliability standards within the SERC Region.

Gas Property

As of December 31, 2017, 2020.

Entergy operates primarily through two business segments: Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

The Utility business segment includes the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric power in portions of Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, including the City of New Orleans distributedOrleans; and transportedoperation of a small natural gas for distribution within New Orleans, Louisiana, through approximately 2,500 milesbusiness.
The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of gas pipeline.  As of December 31, 2017, the gas properties of Entergy Louisiana, which arenuclear power plants located in the northern United States and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, were not materialthe sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Louisiana’sWholesale Commodities also provides services to other nuclear power plant owners and owns interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers. See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” for discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.

See Note 13 to the financial position.statements for financial information regarding Entergy’s business segments.


TitleStrategy


Entergy’s strategy is to operate and grow the premier utility business that creates sustainable value for its customers, employees, communities, and owners. Entergy’s strategy to achieve its stakeholder objectives has two key aspects. First, Entergy invests in the Utility for the benefit of its customers, which supports steady, predictable growth in earnings and dividends. Second, Entergy manages risks by ensuring its Utility investments are customer-centric, supported by progressive regulatory constructs, and executed with disciplined project management.  Entergy’s strategy for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment is to continue to manage the risk of its operating portfolio as Entergy completes its exit from the merchant power business.

Utility

The Utility operating companies’ generating stations are generally located on properties owned in fee simple.  Most of the substations and transmission and distribution lines are constructed on private property or public rights-of-way pursuant to easements, servitudes, or appropriate franchises.  Some substation properties are owned in fee simple.  The Utility operating companies generally have the right of eminent domain, whereby they may perfect title to, or secure easements or servitudes on, private property for theirbusiness segment includes five retail electric utility operations.

Substantially all of the physical properties and assets owned bysubsidiaries: Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas,Texas.  These companies generate, transmit, distribute, and sell electric power to retail and wholesale customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans also provide natural gas utility services to customers in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and New Orleans, Louisiana, respectively.  Also included in the Utility is System Energy, are subject to the liens of mortgages securing bonds issued by those companies.  The Lewis Creek generating station is owned by GSG&T, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Texas,Corporation that owns or leases 90 percent of Grand Gulf.  System Energy sells its power and capacity from Grand Gulf at wholesale to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.  The five retail utility subsidiaries are each regulated by the FERC and by state utility commissions, or, in the case of Entergy New Orleans, the City Council.  System Energy is not subject toregulated by the FERC because all of its mortgage lien.  Lewis Creektransactions are at wholesale.  The overall generation portfolio of the Utility, which relies heavily on natural gas and nuclear generation, is leased to and operated by Entergy Texas.

Fuel Supply

The sources of generation and average fuel cost per kWhconsistent with Entergy’s strong support for the Utility operating companies and System Energy for the years 2015-2017 were:environment.

241
  Natural Gas Nuclear Coal Purchased Power MISO Purchases
Year % of Gen Cents Per kWh % of Gen Cents Per kWh % of Gen Cents Per kWh % of Gen Cents Per kWh % of Gen Cents Per kWh
2017 38 2.60
 26 0.86
 8 2.35
 8 4.02
 20 3.09
2016 41 2.44
 28 0.63
 7 2.65
 9 3.71
 15 3.13
2015 35 2.65
 31 0.85
 7 2.85
 11 3.63
 16 3.24


243

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Customers
Actual
As of December 31, 2020, the Utility operating companies provided retail electric and gas service to customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, as follows:
  Electric CustomersGas Customers
 Area Served(In Thousands)(%)(In Thousands)(%)
Entergy ArkansasPortions of Arkansas722 25 %  
Entergy LouisianaPortions of Louisiana1,096 37 %94 47 %
Entergy MississippiPortions of Mississippi456 15 %  
Entergy New OrleansCity of New Orleans207 %108 53 %
Entergy TexasPortions of Texas473 16 %  
Total customers 2,954 100 %202 100 %

Electric Energy Sales

The electric energy sales of the Utility operating companies are subject to seasonal fluctuations, with the peak sales period normally occurring during the third quarter of each year.  On August 10, 2020, Entergy reached a 2020 peak demand of 21,340 MWh, compared to the 2019 peak of 21,598 MWh recorded on August 12, 2019.  Selected electric energy sales data is shown in the table below:

Selected 2020 Electric Energy Sales Data
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem EnergyEntergy (a)
 (In GWh)
Sales to retail customers20,749 53,896 12,402 5,447 18,677 — 111,170 
Sales for resale:     
Affiliates1,659 5,585 — — 1,203 5,849 — 
Others4,198 2,365 4,316 1,969 810 — 13,658 
Total26,606 61,846 16,718 7,416 20,690 5,849 124,828 
Average use per residential customer (kWh)12,633 14,576 14,093 12,315 14,829 — 13,917 

(a)Includes the effect of intercompany eliminations.

The following table illustrates the Utility operating companies’ 2020 combined electric sales volume as a percentage of total electric sales volume, and 2020 combined electric revenues as a percentage of total 2020 electric revenue, each by customer class.
Customer Class% of Sales Volume% of Revenue
Residential28.239.2
Commercial21.225.4
Industrial (a)37.725.8
Governmental2.02.3
Wholesale/Other10.97.3

(a)Major industrial customers are primarily in the petroleum refining and chemical industries.

See “Selected Financial Data” for each of the Utility operating companies for the detail of their sales by customer class for 2016-2020.
242

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Selected 2020 Natural Gas Sales Data

Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana provide both electric power and natural gas to retail customers.  Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana sold 9,467,899 and 6,268,003 Mcf, respectively, of natural gas to retail customers in 2020.  In 2020, 99% of Entergy Louisiana’s operating revenue was derived from the electric utility business, and only 1% from the natural gas distribution business.  For Entergy New Orleans, 88% of operating revenue was derived from the electric utility business and 12% from the natural gas distribution business in 2020.

Following is data concerning Entergy New Orleans’s 2020 retail operating revenue sources.
Customer ClassElectric Operating RevenueNatural Gas Operating Revenue
Residential48%51%
Commercial35%25%
Industrial5%18%
Governmental/Municipal12%6%

Retail Rate Regulation

General (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas)

Each Utility operating company regularly participates in retail rate proceedings.  The status of material retail rate proceedings is described in Note 2 to the financial statements.  Certain aspects of the Utility operating companies’ retail rate mechanisms are discussed below.
Rate base (in billions)Current authorized return on common equityWeighted average cost of capital (after-tax)Equity ratioRegulatory construct
Entergy Arkansas$8.4 (a)9.25% - 10.25%5.04%36.6% - forward test year formula rate
plan through 2021 test year (i)

- riders: MISO, capacity, Grand
Gulf, tax adjustment, energy
efficiency, fuel and purchased
power
Entergy Louisiana (electric)$11.9 (b)9.2% - 10.4%6.97%48.63% - formula rate plan through 2019
test year (j)

- riders/specific recovery: MISO,
capacity, transmission, fuel
Entergy Louisiana (gas)$0.08 (c)9.3% - 10.3%6.96%48.37% - gas rate stabilization plan

- rider: gas infrastructure
243

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy Mississippi$3.0 (d)8.89% - 10.93%6.82%49.09% - formula rate plan with
forward-looking features

- riders: power management, Grand
Gulf, fuel, MISO, unit power cost,
storm damage, energy efficiency,
ad valorem tax adjustment,
vegetation, grid modernization,
restructuring credit
Entergy New Orleans (electric)$0.8 (e)9.35%7.09%50%
 - formula rate plan with
       forward-looking features

 - riders/specific recovery: fuel and
       purchased power, MISO, energy
       efficiency, environmental
Entergy New Orleans (gas)$0.1 (e)9.35%7.09%50%
 - formula rate plan with
      forward-looking features

 - rider: purchased gas
Entergy Texas$2.4 (f)9.65%7.73%50.9% - rate case

- riders: fuel, distribution and
transmission, generation, rate case
expenses, AMI surcharge,
tax reform, among others
System Energy$1.6 (g)10.94% (h)8.57 %65% (h) - monthly cost of service

(a)Based on 2021 test year.
(b)Based on December 31, 2019 test year and excludes approximately $800 million for the Lake Charles Power Station and $300 million for the Washington Parish Energy Center, each included in the capacity rider, and $400 million of transmission plant, included in the transmission rider.
(c)Based on September 30, 2019 test year.
(d)Based on 2020 forward test year and excludes approximately $300 million for the Choctaw Generating Station, included in interim capacity mechanism.
(e)Based on December 31, 2018 test year and known and measurables through December 31, 2019. Electric rate base excludes approximately $190 million for New Orleans Power Station and $40 million for New Orleans Solar Station.
(f)Based on December 31, 2017 test year and excludes $1.0 billion in cost recovery riders.
(g)Based on calculation as of December 31, 2020.
(h)See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of ongoing proceedings at the FERC challenging System Energy’s authorized return on common equity and capital structure.
(i)See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s pending formula rate plan extension request.
(j)See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s pending formula rate plan extension request.

244

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy Arkansas

Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery

Entergy Arkansas’s rate schedules include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and purchased power costs in monthly bills.  The rider utilizes prior calendar year energy costs and projected energy sales for the twelve-month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an energy cost rate, which is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy cost for the prior calendar year.  The energy cost recovery rider tariff also allows an interim rate request depending upon the level of over- or under-recovery of fuel and purchased energy costs.  In December 2007 the APSC issued an order stating that Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider will remain in effect, and any future termination of the rider would be subject to eighteen months advance notice by the APSC, which would occur following notice and hearing.

Production Cost Allocation Rider

Entergy Arkansas has in place an APSC-approved production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of System Agreement proceedings.

Entergy Louisiana

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Louisiana’s rate schedules include a fuel adjustment clause designed to recover the cost of fuel and purchased power costs.  The fuel adjustment clause contains a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense and related carrying charges arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings related to audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Louisiana received approval from the LPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Louisiana historically hedged approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year.  The hedge quantity was reviewed on an annual basis. In January 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC to suspend these seasonal hedging programs and implement financial hedges with terms up to five years for a portion of its natural gas exposure, which was approved in November 2018.

Entergy Louisiana’s gas rates include a purchased gas adjustment clause based on estimated gas costs for the billing month adjusted by a surcharge or credit that arises from an annual reconciliation of fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Retail Rates - Gas

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the
245

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of the upper end of the earnings band as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s filings to recover storm-related costs.

Other

In March 2016 the LPSC opened two dockets to examine, on a generic basis, issues that it identified in connection with its review of Cleco Corporation’s acquisition by third party investors.  The first docket is captioned “In re: Investigation of double leveraging issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities,” and the second is captioned “In re: Investigation of tax structure issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities.”  In April 2016 the LPSC clarified that the concerns giving rise to the two dockets arose as a result of its review of the structure of the Cleco-Macquarie transaction and that the specific intent of the directives is to seek more information regarding intra-corporate debt financing of a utility’s capital structure as well as the use of investment tax credits to mitigate the tax obligation at the parent level of a consolidated entity.  No schedule has been set for either docket, and limited discovery has occurred.

In December 2019 an LPSC commissioner issued an unopposed directive to staff to research customer-centered options for all customer classes, as well as other regulatory environments, and recommend a plan for how to ensure customers are the focus. There was no opposition to the directive from other commissioners but several remarked that the intent of the directive was not initiated to pursue retail open access. In furtherance of the directive, the LPSC issued a notice of the opening of a docket to conduct a rulemaking to research and evaluate customer-centered options for all electric customer classes as well as other regulatory environments in January 2020.

Entergy Mississippi

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include energy cost recovery riders to recover fuel and purchased power costs.  The energy cost rate for each calendar year is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery of the energy costs as of the 12-month period ended September 30.  Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to annual audits conducted pursuant to the authority of the MPSC.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Mississippi received approval from the MPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Mississippi hedges approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year.  The hedge quantity is reviewed on an annual basis.

246

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings regarding recovery of Entergy Mississippi’s storm-related costs.

Formula Rate Plan

In August 2012 the MPSC opened inquiries to review whether the current formulaic methodology used to calculate the return on common equity in both Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan and Mississippi Power Company’s annual formula rate plan was still appropriate or could be improved to better serve the public interest. The intent of this inquiry and review was for informational purposes only; the evaluation of any recommendations for changes to the existing methodology would take place in a general rate case or in the existing formula rate plan proceeding. In March 2013 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed its consultant’s report which noted the return on common equity estimation methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company are commonly used throughout the electric utility industry. The report suggested ways in which the methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company might be improved, but did not recommend specific changes in the return on common equity formulas or calculations at that time. In June 2014 the MPSC expanded the scope of the August 2012 inquiry to study the merits of adopting a uniform formula rate plan that could be applied, where possible in whole or in part, to both Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company in order to achieve greater consistency in the plans. The MPSC directed the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff to investigate and review Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan rider schedule and Mississippi Power Company’s Performance Evaluation Plan by considering the merits and deficiencies and possibilities for improvement of each and then to propose a uniform formula rate plan that, where possible, could be applicable to both companies. No procedural schedule has been set. In October 2014 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff conducted a public technical conference to discuss performance benchmarking and its potential application to the electric utilities’ formula rate plans. The docket remains open.

Entergy New Orleans

Fuel Recovery

Entergy New Orleans’s electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment tariff designed to reflect no more than targeted fuel and purchased power costs, adjusted by a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel and purchased power costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges.

To help stabilize gas costs, Entergy New Orleans seeks approval annually from the City Council to continue implementation of its natural gas hedging program consistent with the City Council’s stated policy objectives.  The program uses financial instruments to hedge exposure to volatility in the wholesale price of natural gas purchased to serve Entergy New Orleans gas customers.  Entergy New Orleans hedges up to 25% of actual gas sales made during the winter months.

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s efforts to recover storm-related costs.

247

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Energy Efficiency Programs

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  The rate settlement provided an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provided a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In January 2015 the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart program from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted and when new rates from the 2018 combined rate case, which includes a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect. In December 2017 the City Council approved an energy efficiency cost recovery rider as an interim funding mechanism for Energy Smart, subject to verification that no additional funding sources exist. In June 2018 the City Council also approved a resolution recommending that Entergy New Orleans allocate approximately $13.5 million of benefits resulting from the Tax Act to Energy Smart. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2020 through December 2022.

Entergy Texas

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including interest, that are not included in base rates.  Semi-annual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in fuel mix.  The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT.  The PUCT fuel cost proceedings are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements.

At the PUCT’s April 2013 open meeting, the PUCT Commissioners discussed their view that a purchased power capacity rider was good public policy. The PUCT issued an order in May 2013 adopting the rule allowing for a purchased power capacity rider, subject to an offsetting adjustment for load growth. The rule, as adopted, also includes a process for obtaining pre-approval by the PUCT of purchased power agreements. Entergy Texas has not exercised the option to recover its capacity costs under the new rider mechanism, but will continue to evaluate the benefits of utilizing the new rider to recover future capacity costs.

Electric Industry Restructuring

In June 2009, a law was enacted in Texas that required Entergy Texas to cease all activities relating to Entergy Texas’s transition to competition.  The law allows Entergy Texas to remain a part of the SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC) Region, although it does not prevent Entergy Texas from joining another power region.  The law provides that proceedings to certify a power region that Entergy Texas belongs to as a qualified power region can be initiated by the PUCT, or on motion by another party, when the conditions supporting such a proceeding
248

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

exist.  Under the law, the PUCT may not approve a transition to competition plan for Entergy Texas until the expiration of four years from the PUCT’s certification of Entergy Texas’s power region.

The law also contains provisions that allow Entergy Texas to take advantage of a cost recovery mechanism that permits annual filings for the recovery of reasonable and necessary expenditures for transmission infrastructure improvement and changes in wholesale transmission charges.  This mechanism was previously available to other non-ERCOT Texas utility companies, but not to Entergy Texas.

The law further amended already existing law that had required Entergy Texas to propose for PUCT approval a tariff to allow eligible customers the ability to contract for competitive generation.  The amending language in the law provides, among other things, that:  1) the tariff shall not be implemented in a manner that harms the sustainability or competitiveness of manufacturers who choose not to participate in the tariff; 2) Entergy Texas shall “purchase competitive generation service, selected by the customer, and provide the generation at retail to the customer;” and 3) Entergy Texas shall provide and price transmission service and ancillary services under that tariff at a rate that is unbundled from its cost of service.  The law directs that the PUCT may not issue an order on the tariff that is contrary to an applicable decision, rule, or policy statement of a federal regulatory agency having jurisdiction.

The PUCT determined that unrecovered costs that may be recovered through the rider consist only of those costs necessary to implement and administer the competitive generation program and do not include lost revenues or embedded generation costs.  The amount of customer load that may be included in the competitive generation service program is limited to 115 MW.

In September 2011 the PUCT adopted a proposed rule implementing a distribution cost recovery factor to recover capital and capital-related costs related to distribution infrastructure.  The distribution cost recovery factor permits utilities once per year to implement an increase or decrease in rates above or below amounts reflected in base rates to reflect depreciation expense, federal income tax and other taxes, and return on investment.  The distribution cost recovery factor rider may be changed a maximum of four times between base rate cases.

In September 2019 the PUCT initiated a rulemaking to promulgate a generation cost recovery factor rule, implementing legislation passed in the 2019 Texas legislative session intended to allow electric utilities to recover generation investments between base rate proceedings.  The PUCT approved the final rule in July 2020.

Franchises

Entergy Arkansas holds exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 308 incorporated cities and towns in Arkansas.  These franchises are unlimited in duration and continue unless the municipalities purchase the utility property.  In Arkansas franchises are considered to be contracts and, therefore, are terminable pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement and applicable statutes.

Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 175 incorporated municipalities and in the unincorporated areas of approximately 59 parishes of Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide natural gas service to customers in the City of Baton Rouge and in East Baton Rouge Parish.  Municipal franchise agreement terms range from 25 to 60 years while parish franchise terms range from 25 to 99 years.

Entergy Mississippi has received from the MPSC certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide electric service to areas within 45 counties, including a number of municipalities, in western Mississippi.  Under Mississippi statutory law, such certificates are exclusive.  Entergy Mississippi may continue to serve in such municipalities upon payment of a statutory franchise fee, regardless of whether an original municipal franchise is still in existence.

249

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans provides electric and gas service in the City of New Orleans pursuant to indeterminate permits set forth in city ordinances.  These ordinances contain a continuing option for the City of New Orleans to purchase Entergy New Orleans’s electric and gas utility properties.

Entergy Texas holds a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PUCT to provide electric service to areas within approximately 27 counties in eastern Texas, and holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 68 incorporated municipalities.  Entergy Texas typically obtains 25-year franchise agreements as existing agreements expire.  Entergy Texas’s electric franchises expire over the period 2020-2058.

The business of System Energy is limited to wholesale power sales.  It has no distribution franchises.

Property and Other Generation Resources

Owned Generating Stations

The total capability of the generating stations owned and leased by the Utility operating companies and System Energy as of December 31, 2020, is indicated below:
 Owned and Leased Capability MW(a)
CompanyTotalGas/OilNuclearCoalHydroSolar
Entergy Arkansas5,175 2,091 1,817 1,194 73 — 
Entergy Louisiana11,317 8,827 2,144 346 — — 
Entergy Mississippi3,347 2,929 — 416 — 
Entergy New Orleans665 638 — — — 27 
Entergy Texas2,260 2,005 — 255 — — 
System Energy1,256 — 1,256 — — — 
Total24,020 16,490 5,217 2,211 73 29 

(a)“Owned and Leased Capability” is the dependable load carrying capability as demonstrated under actual operating conditions based on the primary fuel (assuming no curtailments) that each station was designed to utilize.

Summer peak load for the Utility has averaged 21,591 MW over the previous decade.

The Utility operating companies’ load and capacity projections are reviewed periodically to assess the need and timing for additional generating capacity and interconnections. These reviews consider existing and projected demand, the availability and price of power, the location of new load, the economy, Entergy’s clean energy and other public policy goals, environmental regulations, and the age and condition of Entergy’s existing infrastructure.

The Utility operating companies’ long-term resource strategy (Portfolio Transformation Strategy) calls for the bulk of capacity needs to be met through long-term resources, whether owned or contracted. Over the past decade, the Portfolio Transformation Strategy has resulted in the addition of about 8,801 MW of new long-term resources and the deactivation of about 4,664 MW of legacy generation. As MISO market participants, the Utility operating companies also participate in MISO’s Day Ahead and Real Time Energy and Ancillary Services markets to economically dispatch generation and purchase energy to serve customers reliably and at the lowest reasonable cost.

250

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Generation Resources

RFP Procurements

The Utility operating companies from time to time issue requests for proposals (RFP) to procure supply-side resources from sources other than the spot market to meet the unique regional needs of the Utility operating companies. The RFPs issued by the Utility operating companies have sought resources needed to meet near-term MISO reliability requirements as well as long-term requirements through a broad range of wholesale power products, including certainlimited-term (1 to 3 years) and long-term contractual products and asset acquisitions. The RFP process has resulted in selections or acquisitions, including, among other things:

Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 980 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (previously referred to as the St. Charles generating facility) at its existing Little Gypsy electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in May 2019;
Entergy Texas’s construction of the 993 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Montgomery County Power Station at its existing Lewis Creek electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in January 2021;
Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 994 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Lake Charles generating facility at its existing Nelson electric generating station site. The facility began commercial operation in March 2020;
In October 2018, Entergy Mississippi signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Sunflower County, Mississippi. Entergy Mississippi received regulatory approval from the MPSC in April 2020, and the facility is scheduled to be in service by early 2022;
In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 800 acres in White County near Searcy, Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas received regulatory approval from the APSC in April 2020 and the facility is scheduled to be in service by the end of 2021;
Entergy New Orleans received regulatory approval in August 2019 to construct the New Orleans Solar Station (a 20 MW self-build solar project) located at the NASA Michoud Facility.The facility was placed in service in December 2020;
In June 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Lee County, Arkansas. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2022;
In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 180 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,500 acres in Crittenden County, Arkansas. In January 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023; and
In June 2020, Entergy Texas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,200 acres in Liberty County near Dayton, Texas.In September 2020, Entergy Texas filed a petition with the PUCT seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals.Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023.

251

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The RFP process has also resulted in the selection, or confirmation of the economic merits of, long-term purchased power agreements (PPAs), including, among others:

River Bend’s 30% life-of-unit PPA between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans for 100 MW related to Entergy Louisiana’s unregulated portion of the River Bend nuclear station, which portion was formerly owned by Cajun;
Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale base load capacity life-of-unit PPAs executed in 2003 totaling approximately 220 MW between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana (110 MW) and between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy New Orleans (110 MW) related to the sale of a portion of Entergy Arkansas’s coal and nuclear base load resources (which had not been included in Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates);
In May 2011, Entergy Texas and Calpine Energy Services, L.P. executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana purchases 50% of the facility’s capacity and energy from affiliates under lifeEntergy Texas. In July 2014, LS Power purchased the Carville Energy Center and replaced Calpine Energy Services as the counterparty to the agreement;
In September 2012, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 28 MW, with the potential to purchase an additional 9 MW when available, from Rain CII Carbon LLC’s petroleum coke calcining facility in Sulphur, Louisiana. The facility began commercial operation in May 2013. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with the facility;
In March 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 8.5 MW from Agrilectric Power Partners, LP’s refurbished rice hull-fueled electric generation facility located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with Agrilectric;
In September 2013, Entergy Louisiana executed a 10-year agreement with TX LFG Energy, LP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of unitMontauk Energy Holdings, LLC, to purchase approximately 3 MW from its landfill gas-fueled power generation facility located in Cleveland, Texas;
Entergy Mississippi’s cost-based purchase, beginning in January 2013, of 90 MW from Entergy Arkansas’s share of Grand Gulf (only 60 MW of this PPA came through the RFP process). Cost recovery for the 90 MW was approved by the MPSC in January 2013;
In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas and Stuttgart Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 81 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generation facility located near Stuttgart, Arkansas. The APSC approved the project and deliveries pursuant to that agreement commenced in June 2018;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and LS Power executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and will begin in June 2022;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and Occidental Chemical Corporation executed a 10-year agreement for 500 MW from the Taft Cogeneration facility located in Hahnville, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and began in June 2018;
In June 2017, Entergy Arkansas and Chicot Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 100 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Chicot County, Arkansas. The transaction received regulatory approval and the PPA began in November 2020;
In February 2018, Entergy Louisiana and LA3 West Baton Rouge, LLC (Capital Region Solar project) executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in February 2019 and the PPA began in October 2020;
In July 2018, Entergy New Orleans and St. James Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 20 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021;
In August 2018, Entergy Louisiana and South Alexander Development I, LLC executed a five-year agreement for 5 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The PPA began in December 2020 and received regulatory approval in January 2021;
252

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

In February 2019, Entergy New Orleans and Iris Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Washington Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021; and
In August 2020, Entergy Texas and Umbriel Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 150 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Polk County, Texas.The PPA is expected to start when the facility reaches commercial operation in 2023.

In April 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Texas, issued an RFP for combined-cycle gas turbine capacity and energy resources. The RFP was seeking up to 1,000 MW - 1,200 MW of capacity, capacity-related benefits, energy, other electric products, and environmental attributes, if any, from a single generation resource located in the “Eastern Region” of Entergy Texas’s service area. In December 2020, Entergy Texas posted notice that it has elected to proceed with the self-build alternative, Orange County Power Station. The self-build alternative will be conditioned on receipt of required internal and regulatory approvals.

In June 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Louisiana, issued an RFP for solar photovoltaic resources. The RFP was seeking 300 MW of energy, capacity, capacity-related benefits, other electric products, and environmental attributes from eligible new-build solar photovoltaic generation resources. In December 2020, Entergy Louisiana concluded evaluations of the RFP. Three proposals have been placed on the primary selection list and two proposals have been placed on the secondary selection list. Negotiations are currently in progress.

In January 2021, Entergy Texas provided notice that it intends to issue an RFP for solar generation resources. The RFP is seeking a minimum of 200 MW through a combination of build-own-transfer agreements, self-build alternatives, and power purchase agreements including the Unit Power Sales Agreement, are:that can provide cost-effective energy supply, fuel diversity, and other benefits to Entergy Texas customers.

 Natural Gas Nuclear Coal Purchased Power (d) MISO Purchases (e)
 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018
Entergy Arkansas (a)28% 33% 49% 51% 18% 15% % 1% 5% 
Entergy Louisiana38% 49% 26% 33% 3% 4% 9% 14% 24% 
Entergy Mississippi (b)47% 55% 18% 30% 13% 15% % 
 22% 
Entergy New Orleans (b)53% 57% 33% 41% 2% 1% % 1% 12% 
Entergy Texas30% 33% 10% 17% 7% 9% 28% 41% 25% 
System Energy (c)
 
 100% 100% 
 
 
 
 
 
Utility (a) (b)38% 44% 26% 36% 8% 9% 8% 11% 20% 

(a)Hydroelectric power provided less than 1% of Entergy Arkansas’s generation in 2017 and is expected to provide about less than1% of its generation in 2018.
(b)Solar power provided less than 1% of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2017 and is expected to provide less than 1% of each of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2018.
(c)Capacity and energy from System Energy’s interest in Grand Gulf is allocated as follows under the Unit Power Sales Agreement: Entergy Arkansas - 36%; Entergy Louisiana - 14%; Entergy Mississippi - 33%; and Entergy New Orleans - 17%.  Pursuant to purchased power agreements, Entergy Arkansas is selling a portion of its owned capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.
(d)Excludes MISO purchases
(e)In December 2013, Entergy integrated its transmission system into the MISO RTO. Entergy offers all of its generation into the MISO energy market on a day-ahead and real-time basis and bids for power in the MISO energy market to serve the demand of its customers, with MISO making dispatch decisions. MISO purchases cannot be projected for 2018.

Some of the Utility’s gas-fired plants are also capable of using fuel oil, if necessary. Although based on current economics the Utility does not expect fuel oil use in 2018, it is possible that various operational events including weather or pipeline maintenance may require the use of fuel oil.

Natural Gas


Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans also distribute natural gas to retail customers in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and New Orleans, Louisiana, respectively. Gas transferred to customers is measured by a meter at the customer’s property. Entergy issues monthly invoices to customers at rates approved by regulators for the volume of gas transferred to date.

233

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Competitive Businesses Revenues

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment derives almost all of its revenue from sales of electric power and capacity produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. The majority of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues are from Entergy’s nuclear power plants located in the northern United States. Entergy issues monthly invoices to the counterparties for these electric sales at the respective contracted or ISO market rate of electricity and related services provided during the previous month.

Almost all of the Palisades nuclear plant output is sold under a 15-year PPA with Consumers Energy, executed as part of the acquisition of the plant in 2007 and expiring in April 2022. Prices under the original PPA range from $43.50/MWh in 2007 to $61.50/MWh in 2022, and the average price under the PPA is $51/MWh. Entergy executed an additional PPA to cover the period from the expiration of the original PPA through final shutdown in May 2022, at a price of $24.14/MWh. Entergy issues monthly invoices to Consumers Energy for electric sales based on the actual output of electricity and related services provided during the previous month at the contract price.  The PPA was at below-market prices at the time of the acquisition and Entergy amortizes a liability to revenue over the life of the agreement.  The amount amortized each period is based upon the present value, calculated at the date of acquisition, of each year’s difference between revenue under the agreement and revenue based on estimated market prices.  Amounts amortized to revenue were $11 million in 2020, $10 million in 2019, and $6 million in 2018.  Amounts to be amortized to revenue through the remaining life of the agreement will be approximately $12 million in 2021 and $5 million in 2022.

Practical Expedients and Exceptions

Entergy has elected not to disclose the value of unsatisfied performance obligations for contracts with an original expected term of one year or less, or for revenue recognized in an amount equal to what Entergy has the right to bill the customer for services performed.

Most of Entergy’s contracts, except in a few cases where there are defined minimums or stated terms, are on demand. This results in customer bills that vary each month based on an approved tariff and usage. Entergy imposes monthly or annual minimum requirements on some customers primarily as credit and cost recovery guarantees and not as pricing for unsatisfied performance obligations. These minimums typically expire after the initial term or when specified costs have been recovered. The minimum amounts are part of each month’s bill and recognized as revenue accordingly. Some of the subsidiaries within the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment have operations and maintenance services contracts that have fixed components and terms longer than one year. The total fixed consideration related to these unsatisfied performance obligations, however, is not material to Entergy revenues.

Recovery of Fuel Costs

Entergy’s Utility operating companies’ rate schedules include either fuel adjustment clauses or fixed fuel factors, which allow either current recovery in billings to customers or deferral of fuel costs until the costs are billed to customers. Where the fuel component of revenues is based on a pre-determined fuel cost (fixed fuel factor), the fuel factor remains in effect until changed as part of a general rate case, fuel reconciliation, or fixed fuel factor filing. System Energy’s operating revenues are intended to recover from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans operating expenses and capital costs attributable to Grand Gulf. The capital costs are based on System Energy’s common equity funds allocable to its net investment in Grand Gulf, plus System Energy’s effective interest cost for its debt allocable to its investment in Grand Gulf.

Taxes Imposed on Revenue-Producing Transactions

Governmental authorities assess taxes that are both imposed on and concurrent with a specific revenue-producing transaction between a seller and a customer, including, but not limited to, sales, use, value added, and
234

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

some excise taxes.  Entergy presents these taxes on a net basis, excluding them from revenues.

Allowance for doubtful accounts

The allowance for doubtful accounts reflects Entergy’s best estimate of expected losses on its accounts receivable balances. Due to the essential nature of utility services, Entergy has historically experienced a low rate of default on its accounts receivables. Due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on customer receivables, however, Entergy recorded an increase in its allowance for doubtful accounts, as shown below:
EntergyEntergy
Arkansas
Entergy
Louisiana
Entergy
Mississippi
Entergy
New
Orleans
Entergy
Texas
 (In Millions)
Balance as of December 31, 2019$7.4 $1.2 $1.9 $0.6 $3.2 $0.5 
Provisions (a)109.0 16.2 43.7 18.8 14.1 16.2 
Write-offs(8.6)(1.8)(3.5)(1.2)(1.0)(1.1)
Recoveries9.9 2.7 3.6 1.3 1.1 1.2 
Balance as of December 31, 2020$117.7 $18.3 $45.7 $19.5 $17.4 $16.8 
(a)Provisions include estimated incremental bad debt expenses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic of $87.1 million for Entergy, $10.5 million for Entergy Arkansas, $36 million for Entergy Louisiana, $15.5 million for Entergy Mississippi, $12.2 million for Entergy New Orleans, and $12.9 million for Entergy Texas that have been deferred as regulatory assets. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the COVID-19 orders issued by retail regulators.
The allowance for currently expected credit losses is calculated as the historical rate of customer write-offs multiplied by the current accounts receivable balance, taking into account the length of time the receivable balances have been outstanding. Although the rate of customer write-offs has historically experienced minimal variation, management monitors the current condition of individual customer accounts to manage collections and ensure bad debt expense is recorded in a timely manner.

235

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




NOTE 20.  QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED) (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

Operating results for the four quarters of 2020 and 2019 for Entergy Corporation and subsidiaries were:
 Operating RevenuesOperating IncomeConsolidated Net IncomeNet Income Attributable to Entergy Corporation
 (In Thousands)
2020:  
First Quarter$2,427,179 $399,756 $123,294 $118,714 
Second Quarter$2,412,788 $439,311 $365,113 $360,533 
Third Quarter$2,903,568 $778,016 $525,699 $521,119 
Fourth Quarter$2,370,101 $152,112 $392,547 $387,968 
2019:  
First Quarter$2,609,584 $283,254 $258,646 $254,537 
Second Quarter$2,666,209 $338,775 $240,533 $236,424 
Third Quarter$3,140,575 $519,929 $369,459 $365,240 
Fourth Quarter$2,462,305 $248,539 $389,606 $385,025 

Earnings per average common share
 20202019
 BasicDilutedBasicDiluted
First Quarter$0.59 $0.59 $1.34 $1.32 
Second Quarter$1.80 $1.79 $1.22 $1.22 
Third Quarter$2.60 $2.59 $1.84 $1.82 
Fourth Quarter$1.95 $1.93 $1.96 $1.94 

Results of operations for 2020 include resolution of the 2014-2015 IRS audit, which resulted in a reduction in deferred income tax expense of $230 million that includes a $396 million reduction in deferred income tax expense at Utility related to the basis of assets contributed in the 2015 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana business combination, including the recognition of previously uncertain tax positions, and deferred income tax expense of $105 million at Entergy Wholesale Commodities and $61 million at Parent and Other resulting from the revaluation of net operating losses as a result of the release of the reserves. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the IRS audit resolution.

Results of operations for 2019 include: 1) a loss of $190 million ($156 million net-of-tax) as a result of the sale of the Pilgrim plant in August 2019; 2) a $156 million reduction in income tax expense recognized by Entergy Wholesale Commodities as a result of an internal restructuring; and 3) impairment charges of $100 million ($79 million net-of-tax) due to costs being charged directly to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired value of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to exit the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant power business. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the internal restructuring. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale of the Pilgrim plant.



236

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements

The business of the Utility operating companies is subject to seasonal fluctuations with the peak periods occurring during the third quarter.  Operating results for the Registrant Subsidiaries for the four quarters of 2020 and 2019 were:
Operating Revenues
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
2020:      
First Quarter$481,912 $930,647 $293,922 $149,302 $339,336 $130,664 
Second Quarter$491,767 $1,011,652 $297,954 $147,343 $372,194 $126,049 
Third Quarter$644,389 $1,120,022 $356,496 $182,064 $494,922 $148,517 
Fourth Quarter$466,426 $1,007,541 $299,482 $155,132 $380,673 $90,228 
2019:      
First Quarter$545,812 $959,330 $282,244 $163,194 $340,474 $140,104 
Second Quarter$542,929 $1,106,317 $302,737 $175,793 $363,580 $139,009 
Third Quarter$687,526 $1,231,677 $398,732 $194,204 $442,877 $145,472 
Fourth Quarter$483,327 $987,851 $339,330 $153,032 $342,024 $148,825 

Operating Income
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
2020:      
First Quarter$67,835 $166,779 $41,181 $12,091 $36,060 $35,309 
Second Quarter$107,949 $256,412 $67,705 $7,602 $56,443 $31,236 
Third Quarter$217,648 $324,496 $93,843 $32,322 $108,306 $48,896 
Fourth Quarter$9,126 $117,134 $33,466 $12,397 $46,040 $1,303 
2019:      
First Quarter$42,471 $153,944 $30,792 $16,136 $16,741 $31,368 
Second Quarter$69,774 $241,520 $45,607 $17,509 $36,022 $24,300 
Third Quarter$182,176 $336,754 $87,024 $28,876 $69,510 $29,086 
Fourth Quarter$32,576 $164,424 $40,331 $6,164 $24,229 $30,231 

237

Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries
Notes to Financial Statements




Net Income
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem Energy
 (In Thousands)
2020:      
First Quarter$44,595 $189,396 $22,526 $11,186 $32,707 $28,513 
Second Quarter$60,170 $170,459 $38,893 $4,929 $46,868 $28,991 
Third Quarter$135,843 $223,466 $58,589 $19,450 $92,164 $31,064 
Fourth Quarter$4,624 $499,031 $20,575 $13,773 $43,334 $10,563 
2019:      
First Quarter$39,121 $127,633 $15,398 $9,023 $21,342 $23,578 
Second Quarter$50,299 $183,084 $26,667 $13,003 $38,936 $24,472 
Third Quarter$149,716 $255,260 $56,237 $24,908 $73,224 $25,031 
Fourth Quarter$23,828 $125,560 $21,623 $5,695 $25,895 $26,039 

Earnings Applicable to Common Equity/Stock
Entergy Texas
(In Thousands)
2020:
First Quarter$32,237 
Second Quarter$46,397 
Third Quarter$91,694 
Fourth Quarter$42,863 
2019:
First Quarter$21,342 
Second Quarter$38,936 
Third Quarter$73,114 
Fourth Quarter$25,425 


238

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy
RISK FACTORS SUMMARY

Entergy’s business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that could affect its ability to successfully implement its business strategy and affect its financial results. Carefully consider all of the information in this report and, in particular, the following principal risks and all of the other specific factors described in Item 1A. of this report, “Risk Factors,” before deciding whether to invest in Entergy or the Registrant Subsidiaries.

Utility Regulatory Risks

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and responsive measures taken are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.
The terms and conditions of service, including electric and gas rates, of the Utility operating companies and System Energy are determined through regulatory approval proceedings that can be lengthy and subject to appeal, potentially resulting in lengthy litigation and uncertainty as to ultimate results.
The Utility operating companies recover fuel, purchased power, and associated costs through rate mechanisms that are subject to risks of delay or disallowance in regulatory proceedings.
Entergy’s business could experience adverse effects related to changes to state or federal legislation or regulation.
There remains uncertainty regarding the effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies.
The Utility operating companies are subject to risks associated with participation in the MISO markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs.
A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred as a result of severe weather (including from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta) could have material effects on Entergy and those Utility operating companies affected by severe weather.

Nuclear Operating, Shutdown, and Regulatory Risks

The results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities could be materially affected by the following:
failure to consistently operate their nuclear power plants at high capacity factors;
refueling outages that last longer than anticipated or unplanned outages;
risks related to the purchase of uranium fuel (and its conversion, enrichment, and fabrication);
the risk that the NRC will change or modify its regulations, suspend or revoke their licenses, or increase oversight of their nuclear plants;
risks and costs related to operating and maintaining their nuclear power plants;
the costs associated with the storage of the spent nuclear fuel, as well as the costs of and their ability to fully decommission their nuclear power plants;
the potential requirement to pay substantial retrospective premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act in the event of a nuclear incident, and losses not covered by insurance;
the risk that the decommissioning trust fund assets for the nuclear power plants may not be adequate to meet decommissioning obligations if market performance and other changes decrease the value of assets in the decommissioning trusts; and
new or existing safety concerns regarding operating nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel.
Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ power plants are subject to impairment charges in certain circumstances and its nuclear power plants are exposed to price risk.
The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to substantial governmental regulation and may be adversely affected by legislative, regulatory, or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

239

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy
General Business Risks

Entergy and the Utility operating companies depend on access to the capital markets and, at times, may face potential liquidity constraints, which could make it more difficult to handle future contingencies.  Disruptions in the capital and credit markets may adversely affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to meet liquidity needs, access capital and operate and grow their businesses, and the cost of capital.
A downgrade in Entergy Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ credit ratings could, among other things, negatively affect Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to access capital.
Changes in tax legislation and taxation as well as the inherent difficulty in quantifying potential tax effects of business decisions could negatively impact Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.
Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to successfully execute on their business strategies, including their ability to complete capital projects, other capital improvements, and strategic transactions is subject to significant risks, and, as a result, they may be unable to achieve some or all of the anticipated results of such strategies.
Failure to attract, retain, and manage an appropriately qualified workforce could negatively affect Entergy or its subsidiaries’ results of operations.
The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs (i) to fulfill their obligations related to environmental and other matters or (ii) related to reliability standards.
Weather, economic conditions, technological developments, and other factors may have a material impact on electricity and gas usage and otherwise materially affect the Utility operating companies’ results of operations.
Entergy could be negatively affected by the effects of climate change and environmental and regulatory obligations intended to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions or increase clean or renewable energy requirements or to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions.
Entergy is dependent on the continued and future availability and quality of water for cooling, process, and sanitary uses.
Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be adequately hedged against changes in commodity prices.
The Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties may not meet their obligations.
Market performance and other changes may decrease the value of benefit plan assets, which then could require additional funding and result in increased benefit plan costs.
The litigation environment in the states in which certain Entergy subsidiaries operate poses a significant risk to those businesses.
Terrorist attacks, cyber attacks, system failures, or data breaches of Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ or its suppliers’ technology systems may adversely affect Entergy’s results of operations.
The effect of higher purchased gas cost charges to customers taking gas service may adversely affect Entergy New Orleans’s results of operations and liquidity.
System Energy owns and, through an affiliate, operates a single nuclear generating facility, and it is dependent on sales to affiliated companies for all of its revenues. Certain contractual arrangements relating to System Energy, the affiliated companies, and these revenues are the subject of ongoing litigation and regulatory proceedings.
As a holding company, Entergy Corporation depends on cash distributions from its subsidiaries to meet its debt service and other financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock.

240

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


ENTERGY’S BUSINESS

Entergy is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations.  Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 MW of electric generating capacity, including approximately 8,000 MW of nuclear power. Entergy delivers electricity to 3.0 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.  Entergy had annual revenues of $10.1 billion in 2020 and had more than 13,000 employees as of December 31, 2020.

Entergy operates primarily through two business segments: Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

The Utility business segment includes the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric power in portions of Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, including the City of New Orleans; and operation of a small natural gas distribution business.
The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants located in the northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also provides services to other nuclear power plant owners and owns interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers. See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” for discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.

See Note 13 to the financial statements for financial information regarding Entergy’s business segments.

Strategy

Entergy’s strategy is to operate and grow the premier utility business that creates sustainable value for its customers, employees, communities, and owners. Entergy’s strategy to achieve its stakeholder objectives has two key aspects. First, Entergy invests in the Utility for the benefit of its customers, which supports steady, predictable growth in earnings and dividends. Second, Entergy manages risks by ensuring its Utility investments are customer-centric, supported by progressive regulatory constructs, and executed with disciplined project management.  Entergy’s strategy for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment is to continue to manage the risk of its operating portfolio as Entergy completes its exit from the merchant power business.

Utility

The Utility business segment includes five retail electric utility subsidiaries: Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.  These companies generate, transmit, distribute, and sell electric power to retail and wholesale customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans also provide natural gas utility services to customers in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and New Orleans, Louisiana, respectively.  Also included in the Utility is System Energy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation that owns or leases 90 percent of Grand Gulf.  System Energy sells its power and capacity from Grand Gulf at wholesale to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.  The five retail utility subsidiaries are each regulated by the FERC and by state utility commissions, or, in the case of Entergy New Orleans, the City Council.  System Energy is regulated by the FERC because all of its transactions are at wholesale.  The overall generation portfolio of the Utility, which relies heavily on natural gas and nuclear generation, is consistent with Entergy’s strong support for the environment.

241

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Customers

As of December 31, 2020, the Utility operating companies provided retail electric and gas service to customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, as follows:
  Electric CustomersGas Customers
 Area Served(In Thousands)(%)(In Thousands)(%)
Entergy ArkansasPortions of Arkansas722 25 %  
Entergy LouisianaPortions of Louisiana1,096 37 %94 47 %
Entergy MississippiPortions of Mississippi456 15 %  
Entergy New OrleansCity of New Orleans207 %108 53 %
Entergy TexasPortions of Texas473 16 %  
Total customers 2,954 100 %202 100 %

Electric Energy Sales

The electric energy sales of the Utility operating companies are subject to seasonal fluctuations, with the peak sales period normally occurring during the third quarter of each year.  On August 10, 2020, Entergy reached a 2020 peak demand of 21,340 MWh, compared to the 2019 peak of 21,598 MWh recorded on August 12, 2019.  Selected electric energy sales data is shown in the table below:

Selected 2020 Electric Energy Sales Data
 Entergy ArkansasEntergy LouisianaEntergy MississippiEntergy New OrleansEntergy TexasSystem EnergyEntergy (a)
 (In GWh)
Sales to retail customers20,749 53,896 12,402 5,447 18,677 — 111,170 
Sales for resale:     
Affiliates1,659 5,585 — — 1,203 5,849 — 
Others4,198 2,365 4,316 1,969 810 — 13,658 
Total26,606 61,846 16,718 7,416 20,690 5,849 124,828 
Average use per residential customer (kWh)12,633 14,576 14,093 12,315 14,829 — 13,917 

(a)Includes the effect of intercompany eliminations.

The following table illustrates the Utility operating companies’ 2020 combined electric sales volume as a percentage of total electric sales volume, and 2020 combined electric revenues as a percentage of total 2020 electric revenue, each by customer class.
Customer Class% of Sales Volume% of Revenue
Residential28.239.2
Commercial21.225.4
Industrial (a)37.725.8
Governmental2.02.3
Wholesale/Other10.97.3

(a)Major industrial customers are primarily in the petroleum refining and chemical industries.

See “Selected Financial Data” for each of the Utility operating companies for the detail of their sales by customer class for 2016-2020.
242

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Selected 2020 Natural Gas Sales Data

Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana provide both electric power and natural gas to retail customers.  Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana sold 9,467,899 and 6,268,003 Mcf, respectively, of natural gas to retail customers in 2020.  In 2020, 99% of Entergy Louisiana’s operating revenue was derived from the electric utility business, and only 1% from the natural gas distribution business.  For Entergy New Orleans, 88% of operating revenue was derived from the electric utility business and 12% from the natural gas distribution business in 2020.

Following is data concerning Entergy New Orleans’s 2020 retail operating revenue sources.
Customer ClassElectric Operating RevenueNatural Gas Operating Revenue
Residential48%51%
Commercial35%25%
Industrial5%18%
Governmental/Municipal12%6%

Retail Rate Regulation

General (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas)

Each Utility operating company regularly participates in retail rate proceedings.  The status of material retail rate proceedings is described in Note 2 to the financial statements.  Certain aspects of the Utility operating companies’ retail rate mechanisms are discussed below.
Rate base (in billions)Current authorized return on common equityWeighted average cost of capital (after-tax)Equity ratioRegulatory construct
Entergy Arkansas$8.4 (a)9.25% - 10.25%5.04%36.6% - forward test year formula rate
plan through 2021 test year (i)

- riders: MISO, capacity, Grand
Gulf, tax adjustment, energy
efficiency, fuel and purchased
power
Entergy Louisiana (electric)$11.9 (b)9.2% - 10.4%6.97%48.63% - formula rate plan through 2019
test year (j)

- riders/specific recovery: MISO,
capacity, transmission, fuel
Entergy Louisiana (gas)$0.08 (c)9.3% - 10.3%6.96%48.37% - gas rate stabilization plan

- rider: gas infrastructure
243

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy Mississippi$3.0 (d)8.89% - 10.93%6.82%49.09% - formula rate plan with
forward-looking features

- riders: power management, Grand
Gulf, fuel, MISO, unit power cost,
storm damage, energy efficiency,
ad valorem tax adjustment,
vegetation, grid modernization,
restructuring credit
Entergy New Orleans (electric)$0.8 (e)9.35%7.09%50%
 - formula rate plan with
       forward-looking features

 - riders/specific recovery: fuel and
       purchased power, MISO, energy
       efficiency, environmental
Entergy New Orleans (gas)$0.1 (e)9.35%7.09%50%
 - formula rate plan with
      forward-looking features

 - rider: purchased gas
Entergy Texas$2.4 (f)9.65%7.73%50.9% - rate case

- riders: fuel, distribution and
transmission, generation, rate case
expenses, AMI surcharge,
tax reform, among others
System Energy$1.6 (g)10.94% (h)8.57 %65% (h) - monthly cost of service

(a)Based on 2021 test year.
(b)Based on December 31, 2019 test year and excludes approximately $800 million for the Lake Charles Power Station and $300 million for the Washington Parish Energy Center, each included in the capacity rider, and $400 million of transmission plant, included in the transmission rider.
(c)Based on September 30, 2019 test year.
(d)Based on 2020 forward test year and excludes approximately $300 million for the Choctaw Generating Station, included in interim capacity mechanism.
(e)Based on December 31, 2018 test year and known and measurables through December 31, 2019. Electric rate base excludes approximately $190 million for New Orleans Power Station and $40 million for New Orleans Solar Station.
(f)Based on December 31, 2017 test year and excludes $1.0 billion in cost recovery riders.
(g)Based on calculation as of December 31, 2020.
(h)See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of ongoing proceedings at the FERC challenging System Energy’s authorized return on common equity and capital structure.
(i)See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s pending formula rate plan extension request.
(j)See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s pending formula rate plan extension request.

244

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy Arkansas

Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery

Entergy Arkansas’s rate schedules include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and purchased power costs in monthly bills.  The rider utilizes prior calendar year energy costs and projected energy sales for the twelve-month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an energy cost rate, which is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy cost for the prior calendar year.  The energy cost recovery rider tariff also allows an interim rate request depending upon the level of over- or under-recovery of fuel and purchased energy costs.  In December 2007 the APSC issued an order stating that Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider will remain in effect, and any future termination of the rider would be subject to eighteen months advance notice by the APSC, which would occur following notice and hearing.

Production Cost Allocation Rider

Entergy Arkansas has in place an APSC-approved production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of System Agreement proceedings.

Entergy Louisiana

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Louisiana’s rate schedules include a fuel adjustment clause designed to recover the cost of fuel and purchased power costs.  The fuel adjustment clause contains a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense and related carrying charges arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings related to audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Louisiana received approval from the LPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Louisiana historically hedged approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year.  The hedge quantity was reviewed on an annual basis. In January 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC to suspend these seasonal hedging programs and implement financial hedges with terms up to five years for a portion of its natural gas exposure, which was approved in November 2018.

Entergy Louisiana’s gas rates include a purchased gas adjustment clause based on estimated gas costs for the billing month adjusted by a surcharge or credit that arises from an annual reconciliation of fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Retail Rates - Gas

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the
245

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of the upper end of the earnings band as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s filings to recover storm-related costs.

Other

In March 2016 the LPSC opened two dockets to examine, on a generic basis, issues that it identified in connection with its review of Cleco Corporation’s acquisition by third party investors.  The first docket is captioned “In re: Investigation of double leveraging issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities,” and the second is captioned “In re: Investigation of tax structure issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities.”  In April 2016 the LPSC clarified that the concerns giving rise to the two dockets arose as a result of its review of the structure of the Cleco-Macquarie transaction and that the specific intent of the directives is to seek more information regarding intra-corporate debt financing of a utility’s capital structure as well as the use of investment tax credits to mitigate the tax obligation at the parent level of a consolidated entity.  No schedule has been set for either docket, and limited discovery has occurred.

In December 2019 an LPSC commissioner issued an unopposed directive to staff to research customer-centered options for all customer classes, as well as other regulatory environments, and recommend a plan for how to ensure customers are the focus. There was no opposition to the directive from other commissioners but several remarked that the intent of the directive was not initiated to pursue retail open access. In furtherance of the directive, the LPSC issued a notice of the opening of a docket to conduct a rulemaking to research and evaluate customer-centered options for all electric customer classes as well as other regulatory environments in January 2020.

Entergy Mississippi

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include energy cost recovery riders to recover fuel and purchased power costs.  The energy cost rate for each calendar year is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery of the energy costs as of the 12-month period ended September 30.  Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to annual audits conducted pursuant to the authority of the MPSC.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Mississippi received approval from the MPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Mississippi hedges approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year.  The hedge quantity is reviewed on an annual basis.

246

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings regarding recovery of Entergy Mississippi’s storm-related costs.

Formula Rate Plan

In August 2012 the MPSC opened inquiries to review whether the current formulaic methodology used to calculate the return on common equity in both Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan and Mississippi Power Company’s annual formula rate plan was still appropriate or could be improved to better serve the public interest. The intent of this inquiry and review was for informational purposes only; the evaluation of any recommendations for changes to the existing methodology would take place in a general rate case or in the existing formula rate plan proceeding. In March 2013 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed its consultant’s report which noted the return on common equity estimation methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company are commonly used throughout the electric utility industry. The report suggested ways in which the methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company might be improved, but did not recommend specific changes in the return on common equity formulas or calculations at that time. In June 2014 the MPSC expanded the scope of the August 2012 inquiry to study the merits of adopting a uniform formula rate plan that could be applied, where possible in whole or in part, to both Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company in order to achieve greater consistency in the plans. The MPSC directed the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff to investigate and review Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan rider schedule and Mississippi Power Company’s Performance Evaluation Plan by considering the merits and deficiencies and possibilities for improvement of each and then to propose a uniform formula rate plan that, where possible, could be applicable to both companies. No procedural schedule has been set. In October 2014 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff conducted a public technical conference to discuss performance benchmarking and its potential application to the electric utilities’ formula rate plans. The docket remains open.

Entergy New Orleans

Fuel Recovery

Entergy New Orleans’s electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment tariff designed to reflect no more than targeted fuel and purchased power costs, adjusted by a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel and purchased power costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges.

To help stabilize gas costs, Entergy New Orleans seeks approval annually from the City Council to continue implementation of its natural gas hedging program consistent with the City Council’s stated policy objectives.  The program uses financial instruments to hedge exposure to volatility in the wholesale price of natural gas purchased to serve Entergy New Orleans gas customers.  Entergy New Orleans hedges up to 25% of actual gas sales made during the winter months.

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s efforts to recover storm-related costs.

247

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Energy Efficiency Programs

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  The rate settlement provided an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provided a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In January 2015 the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart program from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted and when new rates from the 2018 combined rate case, which includes a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect. In December 2017 the City Council approved an energy efficiency cost recovery rider as an interim funding mechanism for Energy Smart, subject to verification that no additional funding sources exist. In June 2018 the City Council also approved a resolution recommending that Entergy New Orleans allocate approximately $13.5 million of benefits resulting from the Tax Act to Energy Smart. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2020 through December 2022.

Entergy Texas

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including interest, that are not included in base rates.  Semi-annual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in fuel mix.  The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT.  The PUCT fuel cost proceedings are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements.

At the PUCT’s April 2013 open meeting, the PUCT Commissioners discussed their view that a purchased power capacity rider was good public policy. The PUCT issued an order in May 2013 adopting the rule allowing for a purchased power capacity rider, subject to an offsetting adjustment for load growth. The rule, as adopted, also includes a process for obtaining pre-approval by the PUCT of purchased power agreements. Entergy Texas has not exercised the option to recover its capacity costs under the new rider mechanism, but will continue to evaluate the benefits of utilizing the new rider to recover future capacity costs.

Electric Industry Restructuring

In June 2009, a law was enacted in Texas that required Entergy Texas to cease all activities relating to Entergy Texas’s transition to competition.  The law allows Entergy Texas to remain a part of the SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC) Region, although it does not prevent Entergy Texas from joining another power region.  The law provides that proceedings to certify a power region that Entergy Texas belongs to as a qualified power region can be initiated by the PUCT, or on motion by another party, when the conditions supporting such a proceeding
248

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

exist.  Under the law, the PUCT may not approve a transition to competition plan for Entergy Texas until the expiration of four years from the PUCT’s certification of Entergy Texas’s power region.

The law also contains provisions that allow Entergy Texas to take advantage of a cost recovery mechanism that permits annual filings for the recovery of reasonable and necessary expenditures for transmission infrastructure improvement and changes in wholesale transmission charges.  This mechanism was previously available to other non-ERCOT Texas utility companies, but not to Entergy Texas.

The law further amended already existing law that had required Entergy Texas to propose for PUCT approval a tariff to allow eligible customers the ability to contract for competitive generation.  The amending language in the law provides, among other things, that:  1) the tariff shall not be implemented in a manner that harms the sustainability or competitiveness of manufacturers who choose not to participate in the tariff; 2) Entergy Texas shall “purchase competitive generation service, selected by the customer, and provide the generation at retail to the customer;” and 3) Entergy Texas shall provide and price transmission service and ancillary services under that tariff at a rate that is unbundled from its cost of service.  The law directs that the PUCT may not issue an order on the tariff that is contrary to an applicable decision, rule, or policy statement of a federal regulatory agency having jurisdiction.

The PUCT determined that unrecovered costs that may be recovered through the rider consist only of those costs necessary to implement and administer the competitive generation program and do not include lost revenues or embedded generation costs.  The amount of customer load that may be included in the competitive generation service program is limited to 115 MW.

In September 2011 the PUCT adopted a proposed rule implementing a distribution cost recovery factor to recover capital and capital-related costs related to distribution infrastructure.  The distribution cost recovery factor permits utilities once per year to implement an increase or decrease in rates above or below amounts reflected in base rates to reflect depreciation expense, federal income tax and other taxes, and return on investment.  The distribution cost recovery factor rider may be changed a maximum of four times between base rate cases.

In September 2019 the PUCT initiated a rulemaking to promulgate a generation cost recovery factor rule, implementing legislation passed in the 2019 Texas legislative session intended to allow electric utilities to recover generation investments between base rate proceedings.  The PUCT approved the final rule in July 2020.

Franchises

Entergy Arkansas holds exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 308 incorporated cities and towns in Arkansas.  These franchises are unlimited in duration and continue unless the municipalities purchase the utility property.  In Arkansas franchises are considered to be contracts and, therefore, are terminable pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement and applicable statutes.

Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 175 incorporated municipalities and in the unincorporated areas of approximately 59 parishes of Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide natural gas service to customers in the City of Baton Rouge and in East Baton Rouge Parish.  Municipal franchise agreement terms range from 25 to 60 years while parish franchise terms range from 25 to 99 years.

Entergy Mississippi has received from the MPSC certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide electric service to areas within 45 counties, including a number of municipalities, in western Mississippi.  Under Mississippi statutory law, such certificates are exclusive.  Entergy Mississippi may continue to serve in such municipalities upon payment of a statutory franchise fee, regardless of whether an original municipal franchise is still in existence.

249

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans provides electric and gas service in the City of New Orleans pursuant to indeterminate permits set forth in city ordinances.  These ordinances contain a continuing option for the City of New Orleans to purchase Entergy New Orleans’s electric and gas utility properties.

Entergy Texas holds a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PUCT to provide electric service to areas within approximately 27 counties in eastern Texas, and holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 68 incorporated municipalities.  Entergy Texas typically obtains 25-year franchise agreements as existing agreements expire.  Entergy Texas’s electric franchises expire over the period 2020-2058.

The business of System Energy is limited to wholesale power sales.  It has no distribution franchises.

Property and Other Generation Resources

Owned Generating Stations

The total capability of the generating stations owned and leased by the Utility operating companies and System Energy as of December 31, 2020, is indicated below:
 Owned and Leased Capability MW(a)
CompanyTotalGas/OilNuclearCoalHydroSolar
Entergy Arkansas5,175 2,091 1,817 1,194 73 — 
Entergy Louisiana11,317 8,827 2,144 346 — — 
Entergy Mississippi3,347 2,929 — 416 — 
Entergy New Orleans665 638 — — — 27 
Entergy Texas2,260 2,005 — 255 — — 
System Energy1,256 — 1,256 — — — 
Total24,020 16,490 5,217 2,211 73 29 

(a)“Owned and Leased Capability” is the dependable load carrying capability as demonstrated under actual operating conditions based on the primary fuel (assuming no curtailments) that each station was designed to utilize.

Summer peak load for the Utility has averaged 21,591 MW over the previous decade.

The Utility operating companies’ load and capacity projections are reviewed periodically to assess the need and timing for additional generating capacity and interconnections. These reviews consider existing and projected demand, the availability and price of power, the location of new load, the economy, Entergy’s clean energy and other public policy goals, environmental regulations, and the age and condition of Entergy’s existing infrastructure.

The Utility operating companies’ long-term resource strategy (Portfolio Transformation Strategy) calls for the bulk of capacity needs to be met through long-term resources, whether owned or contracted. Over the past decade, the Portfolio Transformation Strategy has resulted in the addition of about 8,801 MW of new long-term resources and the deactivation of about 4,664 MW of legacy generation. As MISO market participants, the Utility operating companies also participate in MISO’s Day Ahead and Real Time Energy and Ancillary Services markets to economically dispatch generation and purchase energy to serve customers reliably and at the lowest reasonable cost.

250

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Generation Resources

RFP Procurements

The Utility operating companies from time to time issue requests for proposals (RFP) to procure supply-side resources from sources other than the spot market to meet the unique regional needs of the Utility operating companies. The RFPs issued by the Utility operating companies have sought resources needed to meet near-term MISO reliability requirements as well as long-term requirements through a broad range of wholesale power products, including limited-term (1 to 3 years) and long-term contractual products and asset acquisitions. The RFP process has resulted in selections or acquisitions, including, among other things:

Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 980 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (previously referred to as the St. Charles generating facility) at its existing Little Gypsy electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in May 2019;
Entergy Texas’s construction of the 993 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Montgomery County Power Station at its existing Lewis Creek electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in January 2021;
Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 994 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Lake Charles generating facility at its existing Nelson electric generating station site. The facility began commercial operation in March 2020;
In October 2018, Entergy Mississippi signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Sunflower County, Mississippi. Entergy Mississippi received regulatory approval from the MPSC in April 2020, and the facility is scheduled to be in service by early 2022;
In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 800 acres in White County near Searcy, Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas received regulatory approval from the APSC in April 2020 and the facility is scheduled to be in service by the end of 2021;
Entergy New Orleans received regulatory approval in August 2019 to construct the New Orleans Solar Station (a 20 MW self-build solar project) located at the NASA Michoud Facility.The facility was placed in service in December 2020;
In June 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Lee County, Arkansas. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2022;
In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 180 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,500 acres in Crittenden County, Arkansas. In January 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023; and
In June 2020, Entergy Texas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,200 acres in Liberty County near Dayton, Texas.In September 2020, Entergy Texas filed a petition with the PUCT seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals.Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023.

251

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The RFP process has also resulted in the selection, or confirmation of the economic merits of, long-term purchased power agreements (PPAs), including, among others:

River Bend’s 30% life-of-unit PPA between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans for 100 MW related to Entergy Louisiana’s unregulated portion of the River Bend nuclear station, which portion was formerly owned by Cajun;
Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale base load capacity life-of-unit PPAs executed in 2003 totaling approximately 220 MW between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana (110 MW) and between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy New Orleans (110 MW) related to the sale of a portion of Entergy Arkansas’s coal and nuclear base load resources (which had not been included in Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates);
In May 2011, Entergy Texas and Calpine Energy Services, L.P. executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana purchases 50% of the facility’s capacity and energy from Entergy Texas. In July 2014, LS Power purchased the Carville Energy Center and replaced Calpine Energy Services as the counterparty to the agreement;
In September 2012, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 28 MW, with the potential to purchase an additional 9 MW when available, from Rain CII Carbon LLC’s petroleum coke calcining facility in Sulphur, Louisiana. The facility began commercial operation in May 2013. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with the facility;
In March 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 8.5 MW from Agrilectric Power Partners, LP’s refurbished rice hull-fueled electric generation facility located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with Agrilectric;
In September 2013, Entergy Louisiana executed a 10-year agreement with TX LFG Energy, LP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Montauk Energy Holdings, LLC, to purchase approximately 3 MW from its landfill gas-fueled power generation facility located in Cleveland, Texas;
Entergy Mississippi’s cost-based purchase, beginning in January 2013, of 90 MW from Entergy Arkansas’s share of Grand Gulf (only 60 MW of this PPA came through the RFP process). Cost recovery for the 90 MW was approved by the MPSC in January 2013;
In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas and Stuttgart Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 81 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generation facility located near Stuttgart, Arkansas. The APSC approved the project and deliveries pursuant to that agreement commenced in June 2018;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and LS Power executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and will begin in June 2022;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and Occidental Chemical Corporation executed a 10-year agreement for 500 MW from the Taft Cogeneration facility located in Hahnville, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and began in June 2018;
In June 2017, Entergy Arkansas and Chicot Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 100 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Chicot County, Arkansas. The transaction received regulatory approval and the PPA began in November 2020;
In February 2018, Entergy Louisiana and LA3 West Baton Rouge, LLC (Capital Region Solar project) executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in February 2019 and the PPA began in October 2020;
In July 2018, Entergy New Orleans and St. James Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 20 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021;
In August 2018, Entergy Louisiana and South Alexander Development I, LLC executed a five-year agreement for 5 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The PPA began in December 2020 and received regulatory approval in January 2021;
252

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

In February 2019, Entergy New Orleans and Iris Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Washington Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021; and
In August 2020, Entergy Texas and Umbriel Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 150 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Polk County, Texas.The PPA is expected to start when the facility reaches commercial operation in 2023.

In April 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Texas, issued an RFP for combined-cycle gas turbine capacity and energy resources. The RFP was seeking up to 1,000 MW - 1,200 MW of capacity, capacity-related benefits, energy, other electric products, and environmental attributes, if any, from a single generation resource located in the “Eastern Region” of Entergy Texas’s service area. In December 2020, Entergy Texas posted notice that it has elected to proceed with the self-build alternative, Orange County Power Station. The self-build alternative will be conditioned on receipt of required internal and regulatory approvals.

In June 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Louisiana, issued an RFP for solar photovoltaic resources. The RFP was seeking 300 MW of energy, capacity, capacity-related benefits, other electric products, and environmental attributes from eligible new-build solar photovoltaic generation resources. In December 2020, Entergy Louisiana concluded evaluations of the RFP. Three proposals have been placed on the primary selection list and two proposals have been placed on the secondary selection list. Negotiations are currently in progress.

In January 2021, Entergy Texas provided notice that it intends to issue an RFP for solar generation resources. The RFP is seeking a minimum of 200 MW through a combination of build-own-transfer agreements, self-build alternatives, and power purchase agreements that can provide cost-effective energy supply, fuel diversity, and other benefits to Entergy Texas customers.

Other Procurements From Third Parties

The Utility operating companies have also made resource acquisitions outside of the RFP process, including Entergy Mississippi’s January 2006 acquisition of the 480 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Attala power plant; Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s March 2008 acquisition of the 322 MW, simple-cycle, gas-fired Calcasieu Generating Facility; Entergy Louisiana’s April 2011 acquisition of the 580 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Acadia Energy Center Unit 2; Entergy Arkansas’s (Power Block 2), Entergy Louisiana’s (Power Blocks 3 and 4), and Entergy New Orleans’s (Power Block 1) March 2016 acquisitions of the 1,980 MW (summer rating), natural gas-fired, combined-cycle gas turbine Union Power Station power blocks, each rated at 495 MW (summer rating); and Entergy Mississippi’s October 2019 acquisition of the 810 MW, combined-cycle, natural gas-fired Choctaw Generating Station. The Utility operating companies have also entered into various limited- and long-term contracts in recent years as a result of bilateral negotiations.

The Washington Parish Energy Center is a 361 MW natural gas-fired peaking power plant approximately 60 miles north of New Orleans on a site Entergy Louisiana purchased from Calpine in 2019. In May 2018, Entergy Louisiana received LPSC approval of its certification application for this simple-cycle power plant to be developed pursuant to an agreement between Calpine and Entergy Louisiana. Calpine began construction on the plant in early 2019 and Entergy Louisiana purchased the plant upon completion in November 2020.

The Hardin County Peaking Facility is an existing 147 MW simple-cycle gas-fired peaking power plant in Kountze, Texas, owned by East Texas Electric Cooperative. Entergy Texas is currently seeking regulatory certification to move forward with the purchase of the facility. The facility has been in operation since January 2010.


253

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Power Through Program

In December 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to amend its certificate of convenience and necessity to own and operate up to 75 MW of natural gas-fired distributed generation that is to be installed at commercial and industrial customer premises. If approved, Entergy Texas would own and operate a fleet of generators ranging from 100 kW to 10 MW that would supply a portion of Entergy Texas’s long-term resource needs and enhance the resiliency of Entergy Texas’s electric grid. This fleet of generators would also be available to customers during outages to supply backup electric service as part of a program known as “Power Through.”

Interconnections

The Utility operating companies’ generating units are interconnected to a transmission system operating at various voltages up to 500 kV.  These generating units consist of steam-electric production facilities, combustion-turbine generators, pressurized and boiling water nuclear reactors, and inverter-based technologies operating in the MISO energy and ancillary services market. Entergy’s Utility operating companies are MISO market participants and are interconnected with many neighboring utilities.  MISO is an essential link in the safe, cost-effective delivery of electric power across all or parts of 15 U.S. states and the Canadian province of Manitoba. As a Regional Transmission Organization, MISO assures consumers of unbiased regional grid management and open access to the transmission facilities under MISO’s functional supervision. In addition, the Utility operating companies are members of SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). SERC is a nonprofit corporation responsible for promoting and improving the reliability, adequacy, and critical infrastructure of the bulk power supply systems in all or portions of 16 central and southeastern states.SERC serves as a regional entity with delegated authority from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) for the purpose of proposing and enforcing Bulk Electric System reliability standards within the SERC Region.

Gas Property

As of December 31, 2020, Entergy New Orleans distributed and transported natural gas for distribution within New Orleans, Louisiana, through approximately 2,600 miles of gas pipeline.  As of December 31, 2020, the gas properties of Entergy Louisiana, which are located in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, were not material to Entergy Louisiana’s financial position.

Title

The Utility operating companies’ generating stations are generally located on properties owned in fee simple.  Most of the substations and transmission and distribution lines are constructed on private property or public rights-of-way pursuant to easements, servitudes, or appropriate franchises.  Some substation properties are owned in fee simple.  The Utility operating companies generally have the right of eminent domain, whereby they may perfect title to, or secure easements or servitudes on, private property for their utility operations.

Substantially all of the physical properties and assets owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy are subject to the liens of mortgages securing bonds issued by those companies.  The Lewis Creek generating station of Entergy Texas was acquired by merger with a subsidiary of Entergy Texas and is currently not subject to the lien of the Entergy Texas indenture.


254

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Fuel Supply

The sources of generation and average fuel cost per kWh for the Utility operating companies and System Energy for the years 2018-2020 were:
 Natural GasNuclearCoalPurchased PowerMISO Purchases
Year% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh
202047 1.92 29 0.57 2.54 4.36 13 2.48 
201940 2.33 28 0.73 2.31 4.86 18 2.71 
201839 2.84 27 0.84 2.24 5.23 17 3.71 

Actual 2020 and projected 2021 sources of generation for the Utility operating companies and System Energy, including certain power purchases from affiliates under life of unit power purchase agreements, including the Unit Power Sales Agreement, are:
 Natural GasNuclearCoalPurchased Power (d)MISO Purchases (e)
 2020202120202021202020212020202120202021
Entergy Arkansas (a)24 %35 %60 %51 %10 %13 %%%%— 
Entergy Louisiana51 %59 %26 %27 %%%%12 %13 %— 
Entergy Mississippi (b)73 %69 %14 %22 %%%— — %— 
Entergy New Orleans (b)55 %56 %33 %40 %%%%%%— 
Entergy Texas39 %60 %11 %13 %%%23 %21 %25 %— 
System Energy (c)— — 100 %100 %— — — — — — 
Utility (a) (b)47 %55 %29 %31 %%%%%13 %— 

(a)Hydroelectric power provided less than 1% of Entergy Arkansas’s generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of its generation in 2021.
(b)Solar power provided less than 1% of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of each of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2021.
(c)Capacity and energy from System Energy’s interest in Grand Gulf is allocated as follows under the Unit Power Sales Agreement: Entergy Arkansas - 36%; Entergy Louisiana - 14%; Entergy Mississippi - 33%; and Entergy New Orleans - 17%.  Pursuant to purchased power agreements, Entergy Arkansas is selling a portion of its owned capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.
(d)Excludes MISO purchases.
(e)In December 2013, Entergy integrated its transmission system into the MISO RTO. Entergy offers all of its generation into the MISO energy market on a day-ahead and real-time basis and bids for power in the MISO energy market to serve the demand of its customers, with MISO making dispatch decisions. The MISO purchases metric provided for 2020 is not projected for 2021.

Some of the Utility’s gas-fired plants are also capable of using fuel oil, if necessary. Although based on current economics the Utility does not expect fuel oil use in 2021, it is possible that various operational events including weather or pipeline maintenance may require the use of fuel oil.

Natural Gas

The Utility operating companies have long-term firm and short-term interruptible gas contracts for both supply and transportation. Over 50% of the Utility operating companies’ power plants maintain some level of long-termlong-
255

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

term firm transportation. Short-term contracts and spot-market purchases satisfy additional gas requirements.  Entergy Texas owns a gas storage facility that provides reliable and flexible natural gas service to certain generating stations.


Many factors, including wellhead deliverability, storage, pipeline capacity, and demand requirements of end users, influence the availability and price of natural gas supplies for power plants.  Demand is primarily tied to weather conditions as well as to the prices and availability of other energy sources.  Pursuant to federal and state regulations, gas supplies to power plants may be interrupted during periods of shortage.  To the extent natural gas supplies are disrupted or natural gas prices significantly increase, the Utility operating companies willmay in some instances use alternate fuels, such as oil when available, or rely to a larger extent on coal, nuclear generation, and purchased power.


244

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Coal


Entergy Arkansas has committed to eightseven one- to three-year and two spot contracts that will supply approximately 85% of the total coal supply needs in 2018.2021.  These contracts are staggered in term so that not all contracts have to be renewed the same year.  The remaining 15% of total coal requirements will be satisfied by contracts with a term of less than one year.  Based on continued improved Powder River Basin (PRB) coal deliveries by rail and the high cost of alternate sources and modes of transportation, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Entergy Arkansas during 2018.2021.  Coal will be transported to Arkansas via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Arkansas’s rail transportation requirements for 2018.2021.


Entergy Louisiana has committed to five one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 90% of Nelson Unit 6 coal needs in 2018.2021.  If needed, additional PRB coal will be purchased through contracts with a term of less than one year to provide the remaining supply needs.  For the same reasons as for Entergy Arkansas’s plants, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Nelson Unit 6 during 2018.2021.  Coal will be transported to Nelson primarily via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Louisiana’s rail transportation requirements for 2018.2021.


For the year 2017,2020, coal transportation delivery rates to Entergy Arkansas-and Entergy Louisiana-operated coal-fired units waswere adequate for the majority of the year but experienced some delays in the fourth quarter of 2017. Itto meet supply needs and obligations, and it is expected that delivery times in 2021 will improve in 2018.continue to be consistent. Both Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana control a sufficient number of railcars to satisfy the rail transportation requirement.


The operator of Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3, Louisiana Generating, LLC, has advised Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas that it has adequate rail car and barge capacity to meet the volumes of PRB coal requested for 2018.2021.  Entergy Louisiana’s and Entergy Texas’s coal nomination requests to Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3 are made on an annual basis.


Nuclear Fuel


The nuclear fuel cycle consists of the following:


mining and milling of uranium ore to produce a concentrate;
conversion of the concentrate to uranium hexafluoride gas;
enrichment of the uranium hexafluoride gas;
fabrication of nuclear fuel assemblies for use in fueling nuclear reactors; and
disposal of spent fuel.


The Registrant Subsidiaries that own nuclear plants, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, are responsible through a shared regulated uranium pool for contracts to acquire nuclear material to be used in fueling Entergy’s Utility nuclear units.  These companies own the materials and services in this shared regulated
256

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

uranium pool on a pro rata fractional basis determined by the nuclear generation capability of each company.  Any liabilities for obligations of the pooled contracts are on a several but not joint basis.  The shared regulated uranium pool maintains inventories of nuclear materials during the various stages of processing.  The Registrant Subsidiaries purchase enriched uranium hexafluoride for their nuclear plant reload requirements at the average inventory cost from the shared regulated uranium pool.  Entergy Operations, Inc. contracts separately for the fabrication of nuclear fuel as agent on behalf of each of the Registrant Subsidiaries that owns a nuclear plant.  All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and the owner of a nuclear power plant.


Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, the Utility nuclear units in both the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities segments have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable or fixed prices through most of 2018 or beyond.  The nuclear fuel supply portfolio for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment is being adjusted to reflect reduced overall requirements related to the planned permanent shutdowns of the

245

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Palisades, Pilgrim, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 plants.2023. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners.  There are a number of possible supply alternatives that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, including potentially drawing upon Entergy’s inventory intended for later generation periods depending upon its risk management strategy at that time, although the pricing of any alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time.  In addition, some nuclear fuel contracts are on a non-fixed price basis subject to prevailing prices at the time of delivery.


The effects of market price changes may be reduced and deferred by risk management strategies, such as negotiation of floor and ceiling amounts for long-term contracts, buying for inventory or entering into forward physical contracts at fixed prices when Entergy believes it is appropriate and useful.  Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S.


Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. There are fewer of these providers than for uranium. For conversion and enrichment services, like uranium, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures as needed to ensure supply of enriched uranium for the reliable fabrication of nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the effective performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel, therefore, Entergy provides additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight for the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality.


Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy each have made arrangements to lease nuclear fuel and related equipment and services.  The lessors, which are consolidated in the financial statements of Entergy and the applicable Registrant Subsidiary, finance the acquisition and ownership of nuclear fuel through credit agreements and the issuance of notes.  These credit facilities are subject to periodic renewal, and the notes are issued periodically, typically for terms between three and seven years.


Natural Gas Purchased for Resale


Entergy New Orleans has several suppliers of natural gas.  Its system is interconnected with threeone interstate and three intrastate pipelines.  Entergy New Orleans has a “no-notice” service gas purchase contract with CenterpointCenterPoint Energy Services which guarantees Entergy New Orleans gas delivery at specific delivery points and at any volume within the minimum and maximum set forth in the contract amounts.  The CenterpointCenterPoint Energy Service gas supply is transported to Entergy New Orleans pursuant to a transportation service agreement with Gulf South Pipeline Co.  This service is subject to FERC-approved rates.  Entergy New Orleans also makes interruptible spot market purchases.


Entergy Louisiana purchased natural gas for resale in 20172020 under a firm contract from Sequent Energy Management L.P.  The gas is delivered through a combination of intrastate and interstate pipelines.


257

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

As a result of the implementation of FERC-mandated interstate pipeline restructuring in 1993, curtailments of interstate gas supply could occur if Entergy Louisiana’s or Entergy New Orleans’s suppliers failed to perform their obligations to deliver gas under their supply agreements.  Gulf South Pipeline Co. could curtail transportation capacity only in the event of pipeline system constraints.


Federal Regulation of the Utility


State or local regulatory authorities, as described above, regulate the retail rates of the Utility operating companies.  The FERC regulates wholesale sales of electricity rates and interstate transmission of electricity, including System Energy’s sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of federal regulation proceedings.


246

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


System Agreement (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)


Prior to each operating company’s termination of participation in the System Agreement (Entergy Arkansas in December 2013, Entergy Mississippi in November 2015, and Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each in August 2016), the Utility operating companies engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which was a rate schedule approved by the FERC. Under the terms of the System Agreement, generating capacity and other power resources were jointly operated by the Utility operating companies that were participating in the System Agreement.  The System Agreement provided, among other things, that parties having generating reserves greater than their allocated share of reserves (long companies) would receive payments from those parties having generating reserves that were less than their allocated share of reserves (short companies).  Such payments were at amounts sufficient to cover certain of the long companies’ costs for intermediate and peaking oil/gas-fired generation, including operating expenses, fixed charges on debt, dividend requirements on preferred equity, and a fair rate of return on common equity investment.  Under the System Agreement, the rates used to compensate long companies were based on costs associated with the long companies’ steam electric generating units fueled by oil or gas and having an annual average heat rate above 10,000 Btu/kWh.  In addition, for all energy exchanged among the Utility operating companies under the System Agreement, the companies purchasing exchange energy were required to pay the cost of fuel consumed in generating such energy plus a charge to cover other associated costs. Entergy Arkansas terminated its participation in the System Agreement in December 2013. Entergy Mississippi terminated its participation in the System Agreement in November 2015. The System Agreement terminated with respect to its remaining participants in August 2016.


Although the System Agreement has terminated, certain of the Utility operating companies’ and their retail regulators are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC and in federal courts. The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and other matters. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of legal proceedings at the FERC and in federal courts involving the System Agreement.


Transmission and MISO Markets


OnIn December 19, 2013 the Utility operating companies integrated into the MISO RTO. Although becoming a member of MISO doesdid not affect the ownership by the Utility operating companies of their transmission facilities or the responsibility for maintaining those facilities, MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. MISO also exercises functional control of transmission planning and congestion management and provides schedules and pricing for the commitment and dispatch of generation that is offered into MISO’s markets, as well as pricing for load that bids into the markets. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a bilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. Each Utility operating company has its own transmission pricing zone and a formula rate template (included as Attachment O to the MISO tariff) used to
258

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

establish transmission rates within MISO. The terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs, are subject to regulation by the FERC.


System Energy and Related Agreements


System Energy recovers costs related to its interest in Grand Gulf through rates charged to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans for capacity and energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (described below).  In December 1995, System Energy commencedJuly 2001 a rate proceeding commenced by System Energy at the FERC.  In July 2001 the rate proceedingFERC in 1995 became final, with the FERC approving a prospective 10.94% return on equity.    In 1998 the FERC approved requests by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi to accelerate a portion of their Grand Gulf purchased power obligations.  Entergy Arkansas’s and Entergy Mississippi’s acceleration of Grand Gulf purchased

247

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


power obligations ceased effective July 2001 and July 2003, respectively, as approved by the FERC. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of a complaintcomplaints filed with the FERC in January 2017 regarding System Energy’s return on equity.


Unit Power Sales Agreement


The Unit Power Sales Agreement allocates capacity, energy, and the related costs from System Energy’s ownership and leasehold interests in Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas (36%), Entergy Louisiana (14%), Entergy Mississippi (33%), and Entergy New Orleans (17%).  Each of these companies is obligated to make payments to System Energy for its entitlement of capacity and energy on a full cost-of-service basis regardless of the quantity of energy delivered.  Payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are System Energy’s only source of operating revenue.  The financial condition of System Energy depends upon the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf and the receipt of such payments.  Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans generally recover payments made under the Unit Power Sales Agreement through rates charged to their customers.


In the case of Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana, payments are also recovered through sales of electricity from their respective retained shares of Grand Gulf.  Under a settlement agreement entered into with the APSC in 1985 and amended in 1988, Entergy Arkansas retains 22% of its 36% share of Grand Gulf-related costs and recovers the remaining 78% of its share in rates.  In the event that Entergy Arkansas is not able to sell its retained share to third parties, it may sell such energy to its retail customers at a price equal to its avoided cost, which is currently less than Entergy Arkansas’s cost from its retained share.  Entergy Arkansas has life-of-resources purchased power agreements with Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans that sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s retained share of Grand Gulf to those companies, with the remainder of the retained share being sold to Entergy Mississippi through a separate life-of-resources purchased power agreement.  In a series of LPSC orders, court decisions, and agreements from late 1985 to mid-1988, Entergy Louisiana was granted rate relief with respect to costs associated with Entergy Louisiana’s share of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf, subject to certain terms and conditions.  Entergy Louisiana retains and does not recover from retail ratepayers 18% of its 14% share of the costs of Grand Gulf capacity and energy and recovers the remaining 82% of its share in rates.  Entergy Louisiana is allowed to recover through the fuel adjustment clause at 4.6 cents per kWh for the energy related to its retained portion of these costs.  Alternatively, Entergy Louisiana may sell such energy to non-affiliated parties at prices above the fuel adjustment clause recovery amount, subject to the LPSC’s approval. Entergy Arkansas also has a life-of-resources purchased power agreement with Entergy Mississippi to sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s non-retained share of Grand Gulf. Entergy Mississippi was granted rate relief for those purchases by the MPSC through its annual unit power cost rate mechanism.


Availability Agreement


The Availability Agreement among System Energy and Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans was entered into in 1974 in connection with the financing by System Energy
259

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

of Grand Gulf. The Availability Agreement provides that System Energy make available to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans all capacity and energy available from System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf.


Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans also agreed severally to pay System Energy monthly for the right to receive capacity and energy from Grand Gulf in amounts that (when added to any amounts received by System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement) would at least equal System Energy’s total operating expenses for Grand Gulf (including depreciation at a specified rate and expenses incurred in a permanent shutdown of Grand Gulf) and interest charges.


The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement are fixed as follows: Entergy Arkansas - 17.1%; Entergy Louisiana - 26.9%; Entergy Mississippi - 31.3%; and Entergy New Orleans - 24.7%. The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement would remain in effect and would govern payments made under such agreement in

248

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


the event of a shortfall of funds available to System Energy from other sources, including payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.


System Energy has assigned its rights to payments and advances from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under the Availability Agreement as security for its onetwo outstanding series of first mortgage bonds.  In these assignments, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans further agreed that, in the event they were prohibited by governmental action from making payments under the Availability Agreement (for example, if the FERC reduced or disallowed such payments as constituting excessive rates), they would then make subordinated advances to System Energy in the same amounts and at the same times as the prohibited payments. System Energy would not be allowed to repay these subordinated advances so long as it remained in default under the related indebtedness or in other similar circumstances.


Each of the assignment agreements relating to the Availability Agreement provides that Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans will make payments directly to System Energy. However, if there is an event of default, those payments must be made directly to the holders of indebtedness that are the beneficiaries of such assignment agreements. The payments must be made pro rata according to the amount of the respective obligations secured.


The obligations of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans to make payments under the Availability Agreement are subject to the receipt and continued effectiveness of all necessary regulatory approvals.  Sales of capacity and energy under the Availability Agreement would require that the Availability Agreement be submitted to the FERC for approval with respect to the terms of such sale. No such filing with the FERC has been made because sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf are being made pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement.  If, for any reason, sales of capacity and energy are made in the future pursuant to the Availability Agreement, the jurisdictional portions of the Availability Agreement would be submitted to the FERC for approval.


Since commercial operation of Grand Gulf began, payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement to System Energy have exceeded the amounts payable under the Availability Agreement and, therefore, no payments under the Availability Agreement have ever been required.  If Entergy Arkansas or Entergy Mississippi fails to make its Unit Power Sales Agreement payments, and System Energy is unable to obtain funds from other sources, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans could become subject to claims or demands by System Energy or its creditors for payments or advances under the Availability Agreement (or the assignments thereof) equal to the difference between their required Unit Power Sales Agreement payments and their required Availability Agreement payments because their Availability Agreement obligations exceed their Unit Power Sales Agreement obligations.


The Availability Agreement may be terminated, amended, or modified by mutual agreement of the parties thereto, without further consent of any assignees or other creditors.

Capital Funds Agreement

System Energy and Entergy Corporation have entered into the Capital Funds Agreement, whereby Entergy Corporation has agreed to supply System Energy with sufficient capital to (i) maintain System Energy’s equity capital at an amount equal to a minimum of 35% of its total capitalization (excluding short-term debt) and (ii) permit the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf and pay in full all indebtedness for borrowed money of System Energy when due.

Entergy Corporation has entered into various supplements to the Capital Funds Agreement. System Energy has assigned its rights under such a supplement as security for its one outstanding series of first mortgage bonds. The supplement provides that permitted indebtedness for borrowed money incurred by System Energy in connection with the financing of Grand Gulf may be secured by System Energy’s rights under the Capital Funds Agreement on a pro rata basis (except for the Specific Payments, as defined below). In addition, in the supplements to the Capital Funds Agreement relating to the specific indebtedness being secured, Entergy Corporation has agreed to make cash capital

249260

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



contributions directly to System Energy sufficient to enable System Energy to make payments when due on such indebtedness (Specific Payments). However, if there is an event of default, Entergy Corporation must make those payments directly to the holders of indebtedness benefiting from the supplemental agreements. The payments (other than the Specific Payments) must be made pro rata according to the amount of the respective obligations benefiting from the supplemental agreements.

The Capital Funds Agreement may be terminated, amended, or modified by mutual agreement of the parties thereto, upon obtaining the consent, if required, of those holders of System Energy’s indebtedness then outstanding who have received the assignments of the Capital Funds Agreement. No such consent would be required to terminate the Capital Funds Agreement or the supplement thereto at this time.


Service Companies


Entergy Services, a corporationlimited liability company wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation, provides management, administrative, accounting, legal, engineering, and other services primarily to the Utility operating companies, but also provides services to Entergy Wholesale Commodities. Entergy Operations is also wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation and provides nuclear management, operations and maintenance services under contract for ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, subject to the owner oversight of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, respectively.  Entergy Services and Entergy Operations provide their services to the Utility operating companies and System Energy on an “at cost” basis, pursuant to cost allocation methodologies for these service agreements that were approved by the FERC.


Jurisdictional Separation of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. into Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas


Effective December 31, 2007, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. completed a jurisdictional separation into two vertically integrated utility companies, one operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the PUCT, Entergy Texas, and the other operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the LPSC, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana.  Entergy Texas owns all Entergy Gulf States, Inc. distribution and transmission assets located in Texas, the gas-fired generating plants located in Texas, undivided 42.5% ownership shares of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.’s 70% ownership interest in Nelson Unit 6 and 42% ownership interest in Big Cajun 2, Unit 3, which are coal-fired generating plants located in Louisiana, and other assets and contract rights to the extent related to utility operations in Texas.  Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, owns all of the remaining assets that were owned by Entergy Gulf States, Inc.  On a book value basis, approximately 58.1% of the Entergy Gulf States, Inc. assets were allocated to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and approximately 41.9% were allocated to Entergy Texas.


Entergy Texas purchases from Entergy Louisiana pursuant to a life-of-unit purchased power agreement a 42.5% share of capacity and energy from the 70% of River Bend subject to retail regulation.  Entergy Texas was allocated a share of River Bend’s nuclear and environmental liabilities that is identical to the share of the plant’s output purchased by Entergy Texas under the purchased power agreement.  In connection with the termination of the System Agreement effective August 31, 2016, the purchased power agreements that were put in place for certain legacy units at the time of the jurisdictional separation were also terminated at that time. See Note 2 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the purchased power agreements.


Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination


On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States

250

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” (Entergy Louisiana). With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana. See Note 2 to the financial statements for additional discussion

261


Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans Internal Restructuring


In November 2017, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans, Inc. undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:


Entergy New Orleans, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which included a call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. converted from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.


In December 2017, Entergy New Orleans, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Group, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power then changed its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC. Entergy New Orleans, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.


Earnings RatiosEntergy Arkansas Internal Restructuring

In November 2018, Entergy Arkansas undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at the aggregate redemption price of Registrant Subsidiariesapproximately $32.7 million.

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. converted from an Arkansas corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Arkansas, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Arkansas Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Arkansas Power), and Entergy Arkansas Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Arkansas Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Property, Inc., and Entergy Arkansas Power then changed its name to Entergy Arkansas, LLC. Entergy Arkansas, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. The Registrant Subsidiaries’ ratiostransaction was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Mississippi Internal Restructuring

In November 2018, Entergy Mississippi undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy Mississippi, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock, at the aggregate redemption price of earningsapproximately $21.2 million.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. converted from a Mississippi corporation to fixed charges and ratios of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred dividends or distributions pursuant to Item 503 of SEC Regulation S-K are as follows:a Texas corporation.
262
 
Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
Years Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
Entergy Arkansas2.87 3.32 2.04 3.08 3.62
Entergy Louisiana3.85 3.57 3.36 3.44 3.30
Entergy Mississippi4.49 3.96 3.59 3.23 3.19
Entergy New Orleans4.50 4.61 4.90 3.55 1.85
Entergy Texas2.41 2.92 2.22 2.39 1.94
System Energy4.91 5.39 4.53 4.04 5.66


251

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Mississippi, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Mississippi Power and Light), and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Mississippi, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Mississippi, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.
 
Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed
Charges and Preferred Dividends or Distributions
Years Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
Entergy Arkansas2.81 3.09 1.85 2.76 3.25
Entergy Louisiana3.85 3.57 3.24 3.28 3.14
Entergy Mississippi4.36 3.71 3.34 3.00 2.97
Entergy New Orleans4.24 4.30 4.50 3.26 1.70


In December 2018, Entergy Mississippi, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Enterprises, Inc., and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light then changed its name to Entergy Mississippi, LLC. Entergy Mississippi, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Mississippi, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.
The Registrant Subsidiaries accrue interest expense related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense and do not include it in fixed charges.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities


Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants, located in the northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities revenues are primarily derived from sales of energy and generation capacity from these plants. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also provides operations and management services, including decommissioningdecommissioning-related services, to nuclear power plants owned by other utilitiesnon-affiliated entities in the United States. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers.


On December 29, 2014, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Vermont Yankee plant was removed from the grid, after 42 years of operations. The decision to close and decommission Vermont Yankee, which was announced in August 2013, was due to numerous issues including sustained low natural gas and wholesale energy prices, the high cost structure of the plant, and lack of a market structure that adequately compensates merchant nuclear plants for their environmental and fuel diversity benefits in the Northeast region. In November 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell 100% of its membership interest in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC to a subsidiary of NorthStar. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee is the owner of the Vermont Yankee plant.  The sale of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to NorthStar will include the transfer of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee’s nuclear decommissioning trust fund and the asset retirement obligation for spent fuel management and decommissioning of the plant. Entergy plans to transfer all spent nuclear fuel to dry cask storage by the end of 2018 in advance of the planned transaction close. Under the sale and related agreements to be entered into at the closing, NorthStar will commit to initiate decommissioning and site restoration by 2021 and complete those activities, along with partial restoration of the Vermont Yankee site, with the exception of the independent spent fuel storage installation and switchyard, by 2030. The original completion date, as outlined in Entergy’s Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report filed with the NRC, was 2075. The transaction is contingent upon certain closing conditions, including approval by the NRC; approval by the State of Vermont Public Utility Commission, including approval of site restoration standards that will be proposed as part of the transaction; the transfer of all spent nuclear fuel to dry fuel storage on the independent spent fuel storage installation; and that the market value of the assets held in the decommissioning trust fund for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, less the hypothetical income tax on the aggregate unrealized net gain of such assets at closing, is equal to or exceeds $451.95 million, subject to adjustments.

In October 2015, Entergy determined that it would close the FitzPatrick plant at the end of its fuel cycle in January 2017. In August 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon. The transaction was contingent upon, among other things, the expiration of the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals from the FERC, the NRC, and the Public Service Commission of the State of New York (NYPSC), and the receipt of a private letter ruling from the IRS. Because certain specified conditions were satisfied in November 2016, including the continued effectiveness of the Clean Energy Standards/Zero Emissions Credit program (CES/ZEC), the establishment of certain long-term agreements on acceptable terms with the Energy Research and Development Authority of the State of New York in connection with the CES/ZEC program, and NYPSC approval of the transaction on acceptable terms, Entergy

252

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


refueled the FitzPatrick plant in January and February 2017. The sale closed in March 2017 after obtaining all the necessary approvals.

In October 2015, Entergy determined that it would close the Pilgrim plant. The decision came after management’s extensive analysis of the economics and operating life of the plant following the NRC’s decision in September 2015 to place the plant in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. The Pilgrim plant is expected to cease operations on May 31, 2019, after refueling in the spring of 2017 and operating through the end of that fuel cycle.

In December 2015, Entergy Wholesale Commodities closed on the sale of its 583 MW Rhode Island State Energy Center, in Johnston, Rhode Island. The base sales price, excluding adjustments, was approximately $490 million. Entergy Wholesale Commodities purchased the Rhode Island State Energy Center for $346 million in December 2011.

In December 2016, Entergy announced that it had reached an agreement with Consumers Energy to terminate the existing PPA for the Palisades plant on May 31, 2018. Pursuant to the agreement, Consumers Energy would pay Entergy $172 million for the early termination of the PPA. The PPA amendment agreement was subject to regulatory approvals, including approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Separately, Entergy intended to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on October 1, 2018, after refueling in the spring of 2017 and operating through the end of that fuel cycle. In September 2017 the Michigan Public Service Commission issued an order conditionally approving the PPA amendment transaction, but granting Consumers Energy recovery of only $136.6 million of the $172 million requested early termination payment. As a result, Entergy and Consumers Energy agreed to terminate the PPA amendment agreement. Entergy will continue to operate Palisades under the current PPA with Consumers Energy, instead of shutting down in the fall of 2018 as previously planned. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on May 31, 2022.

In January 2017, Entergy reached a settlement with New York State, several State agencies, and Riverkeeper, Inc., under which Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 will cease commercial operation by April 30, 2020 and April 30, 2021, respectively, subject to certain conditions, including New York State’s withdrawal of opposition to Indian Point’s license renewals and issuance of contested permits and similar authorizations. See Note 14 to the financial statements for a discussion of the impairment and related charges associated with the settlement with New York State.

The Indian Point settlement required New York State agencies to issue environmental certifications needed for license renewal and a renewed water discharge permit based on current plant configuration. It also required the New York State Attorney General and Riverkeeper to withdraw their contentions pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). In exchange, Entergy commits to cease commercial operation of Indian Point 2 by April 30, 2020 and Indian Point 3 by April 30, 2021. These actions have been completed, all New York State approvals required for the NRC to issue renewed licenses have been granted, and the ASLB has terminated proceedings before it following the withdrawal of pending contentions. The NRC is not expected to issue renewed licenses earlier than third quarter 2018, as its staff must complete updates to the record on environmental and safety matters (a supplement to the final supplemental environmental impact statement and a supplement to the final safety evaluation report).

With the settlement concerning Indian Point, Entergy has announced plans for the disposition of all of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, including the sales of Vermont Yankee and FitzPatrick, and the earlier than previously expected shutdowns of Pilgrim, Palisades, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3. See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.


253

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Property


Nuclear Generating Stations


Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership of the following nuclear power plants:
Power PlantMarketIn Service YearAcquiredLocationCapacity - Reactor TypeLicense Expiration Date
Pilgrim (a)ISO-NE1972July 1999Plymouth, MA688 MW - Boiling Water2032 (a)
Indian Point 3 (b)(a)NYISO1976Nov. 2000Buchanan, NY1,041 MW - Pressurized Water2015 (b)2025 (a)
Indian Point 2 (b)(a)NYISO1974Sept. 2001Buchanan, NY1,028 MW - Pressurized Water2013 (b)2024 (a)
Vermont Yankee (c)Palisades (b)IS0-NEMISO19721971July 2002Vernon, VT605 MW - Boiling Water2032 (c)
Palisades (d)MISO1971Apr. 2007Covert,
MI
811 MW - Pressurized Water2031 (d)(b)

(a)In October 2015, Entergy determined that it would close the Pilgrim plant no later than June 1, 2019, as discussed above.
(b)In January 2017, Entergy announced that it reached a settlement with New York State to shut down Indian Point 2 by April 30, 2020 and Indian Point 3 by April 30, 2021, and resolve all New York State-initiated legal challenges to Indian Point’s operating license renewal. See below for discussion of Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 entering their “period of extended operation” after expiration of the plants’ initial license terms under “timely renewal.”
(c)On December 29, 2014, the Vermont Yankee plant ceased power production. In November 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell 100% of the membership interest in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, to NorthStar. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee is the owner of the Vermont Yankee plant.
(d)In December 2016, Entergy announced that it had reached an agreement with Consumers Energy to terminate the existing PPA for the Palisades plant in 2018. Separately, and assuming regulatory approvals are obtained for the PPA termination agreement, Entergy intended to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on October 1, 2018, after refueling in the spring of 2017 and operating through the end of that fuel cycle. In September 2017, as a result of the Michigan Public Service Commission’s order, Entergy and Consumers Energy agreed to terminate the PPA amendment agreement. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on May 31, 2022.


In October 2015,(a)Power operations ceased at the Indian Point 2 plant in April 2020. The fuel was permanently removed from the reactor vessel and placed in the spent fuel pool in May 2020. The Indian Point 3 plant is expected to cease operations on April 30, 2021. Entergy determined that it would closeand Holtec jointly filed a license transfer application with the FitzPatrick plant atNRC in November 2019, requesting approval for the endtransfer of the fuel cycle, in January 2017, but in August 2016,Indian Point plants, along with their nuclear decommissioning trusts and decommissioning liabilities, from Entergy entered into an agreementto Holtec. The NRC approved the license transfer application on November 23, 2020.
263

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

(b)The Palisades plant is expected to cease operations on May 31, 2022. There is a contract to sell the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon,Holtec subject to NRC and other regulatory approvals.

See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale closed in March 2017.of each of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.


Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of two non-operating nuclear facilities, Big Rock Point in Michigan and Indian Point 1 in New York that were acquired when Entergy purchased the Palisades and Indian Point 2 nuclear plants, respectively. These facilities are in various stages of the decommissioning process.

In April 2007, Entergy submitted to the NRC a joint application to renew the operating licenses for Indian Both Big Rock Point 2 and Indian Point 3 for an additional 20 years. The original expiration dates of the NRC operating licenses for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 were September 28, 2013 and December 12, 2015, respectively. Authorization1 are under contract to operate Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 rests on Entergy’s having timely filed a license renewal application that remains pending before the NRC. Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 have now enteredbe sold with their “period of extended operation” after expiration of the plants’ initial license term under “timely renewal,” which is a federal statutory rule of general applicability providing for extension of a license for which a renewal application has been timely filed with the licensing agency until the license renewal process has been completed. The license renewal application for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 qualifies for timely renewal protection because it met NRC regulatory standards for timely filing. The NRC is not expected to issue renewed licenses earlier than third quarter 2018. For additional discussion of the license renewal applications and the settlement with New York State, see “Entergy Wholesale Commoditiesrespective plants.

254

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Authorizations to Operate Indian Point” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis.


Non-nuclear Generating Stations

In November 2016, Entergy sold its 50% membership interest in Top Deer Wind Ventures, LLC, a wind-powered electric generation joint venture owned in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment and accounted for as an equity method investment. Entergy sold its 50% membership interest in Top Deer for $0.5 million and realized a pre-tax loss of $0.2 million.


Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, or interests in joint ventures that own, the following non-nuclear power plants:
PlantLocationOwnershipNet Owned Capacity (a)Type
Independence Unit 2;   842 MWNewark, AR14%121 MW(b)Coal
RS Cogen;   425 MW (c)Lake Charles, LA50%213 MWGas/Steam
Nelson Unit 6;   550 MWWestlake, LA11%60 MW(b)Coal


(a)“Net Owned Capacity” refers to the nameplate rating on the generating unit.
(b)
The owned MW capacity is the portion of the plant capacity owned by Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  For a complete listing of Entergy’s jointly-owned generating stations, refer to “Jointly-Owned Generating Stations” in Note 1 to the financial statements.
(c)Indirectly owned through interests in unconsolidated joint ventures.

(a)“Net Owned Capacity” refers to the nameplate rating on the generating unit.
(b)The owned MW capacity is the portion of the plant capacity owned by Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  For a complete listing of Entergy’s jointly-owned generating stations, refer to “Jointly-Owned Generating Stations” in Note 1 to the financial statements.
(c)Indirectly owned through an interest in an unconsolidated joint venture. In December 2020, Entergy’s wholly-owned subsidiary with a direct interest in RS Cogen, LLC entered into a membership interest purchase agreement with a subsidiary of the other 50% equity partner to sell its 50% membership interest in the joint venture to the equity partner. The targeted closing date for the transaction is October 2022.

Independent System Operators


The Pilgrim plant falls under the authority of the Independent System Operator New England (ISO-NE) and the Indian Point plants fall under the authority of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). The Palisades plant falls under the authority of the MISO. The primary purpose of ISO-NE, NYISO and MISO is to direct the operations of the major generation and transmission facilities in their respective regions; ensure grid reliability; administer and monitor wholesale electricity markets; and plan for their respective region’s energy needs.


Energy and Capacity Sales


As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy in the day ahead or spot markets.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities also sells unforced capacity, which allows load-serving entities to meet specified reserve and related requirements placed on them by the ISOs in their respective areas.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward physical power contracts consist of contracts to sell energy only, contracts to sell capacity only, and bundled contracts in which it sells both capacity and energy.  While the terminology and payment mechanics vary in these contracts, each of these types of contracts requires Entergy Wholesale Commodities to deliver MWh of energy, make capacity available, or both.See “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for additional information regarding these contracts.


264

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

As part of the purchase of the Palisades plant in 2007, Entergy executed a 15-year PPA with the seller, Consumers Energy, for 100% of the plant’s output, excluding any future uprates. Under the purchased power agreement, Consumers Energy receives the value of any new environmental credits for the first ten years of the agreement. Palisades and Consumers Energy will share on a 50/50 basis the value of any new environmental credits for years 11 through 15 of the agreement. The environmental credits are defined as benefits from a change in law that causes capability of the plant as of the purchase date to become a tradable attribute (e.g., emission credit, renewable energy credit, environmental

255

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


credit, “green” credit, etc.) or otherwise to have a market value. In December 2016, Entergy announced that it reached an agreement with Consumers Energy to terminate the existing PPA for the Palisades plant in 2018. Entergy intended to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on October 1, 2018, after refueling in the spring of 2017 and operating through the end of that fuel cycle. In September 2017, as a result of the Michigan Public Service Commission’s order, Entergy and Consumers Energy agreed to terminate the PPA amendment agreement. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on May 31, 2022. See discussion above for additional details regarding the agreement.2022 and transfer to Holtec thereafter.


Customers


Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ customers for the sale of both energy and capacity from its nuclear plants include retail power providers, utilities, electric power co-operatives, power trading organizations, and other power generation companies. These customers include Consolidated Edison and Consumers Energy, companiesthe company from which Entergy purchased plants,the Palisades plant, and ISO-NE, NYISO and MISO. Substantially all of the credit exposure associated with the planned energy output under contract for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants is with counterparties or their guarantors that have public investment grade credit ratings.


Competition


The ISO-NE and NYISO markets aremarket is highly competitive. Entergy Wholesale Commodities has numerous competitors in New England and New York including generation companies affiliated with regulated utilities, other independent power producers, municipal and co-operative generators, owners of co-generation plants and wholesale power marketers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities is an independent power producer, which means it generates power for sale to third parties at day ahead or spot market prices to the extent that the power is not sold under a fixed price contract. Municipal and co-operative generators also generate power but use most of it to deliver power to their municipal or co-operative power customers. Owners of co-generation plants produce power primarily for their own consumption. Wholesale power marketers do not own generation; rather they buy power from generators or other market participants and resell it to retail providers or other market participants. Competition in the New England and New York power marketsmarket is affected by, among other factors, the amount of generation and transmission capacity in these markets. MISO does not have a centralized clearing capacity market, but load serving entities do meet the majoritymost of their capacity needs through bilateral contracts and self-supply with a smaller portion coming through voluntary MISO auctions. The majorityAlmost all of Palisades’ current output is contracted to Consumers Energy through May 2022. Entergy Wholesale Commodities does not expect to be materially affected by competition in the MISO market in the near term.


Seasonality


Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues and operating income are subject to fluctuations during the year due to seasonal factors, weather conditions, and contract pricing.  Refueling outages are generally in the spring and fall, and cause volumetric decreases during those seasons. When outdoor and cooling water temperatures are low, generally during colder months, Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants operate more efficiently, and consequently, generate more electricity. Many of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contracts provide for shaped pricing over the course of the year. As a result of these factors, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues are typically higher in the first and third quarters than in the second and fourth quarters.


256

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Fuel Supply


Nuclear Fuel


See “Fuel Supply - Nuclear Fuel” in the Utility portion of Part I, Item 1 for a discussion of the nuclear fuel cycle and markets. Entergy Nuclear Fuels Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, is responsible for contracts to acquire nuclear materials, except for fuel fabrication, for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants,
265

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

while Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. acts as the agent for the purchase of nuclear fuel assembly fabrication services. All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and each of the nuclear power plant owners. The nuclear fuel supply portfolio for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment has been adjusted to reflect reduced overall requirements related to the planned permanent shutdowns of the Indian Point 3 and Palisades plants. Fuel procurement for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment was primarily limited to the requirements of the Palisades plant’s final refueling in 2020.


Other Business Activities


Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC (ENPM) was formed in 2005 to centralize the power marketing function for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants. Upon its formation, ENPM entered into long-term power purchase agreements with the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries that own nuclear power plants (generating subsidiaries). As part of a series of agreements, ENPM agreed to assume and/or otherwise service the existing power purchase agreements that were in effect between the generating subsidiaries and their customers. ENPM’s functions include origination of new energy and capacity transactions and generation scheduling.


Entergy Nuclear, Inc. can pursue service agreements with other nuclear power plant owners who seek the advantages of Entergy’s scale and expertise but do not necessarily want to sell their assets.  Services provided by either Entergy Nuclear, Inc. or other Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries include engineering, operations and maintenance, fuel procurement, management and supervision, technical support and training, administrative support, and other managerial or technical services required to operate, maintain, and decommission nuclear electric power facilities.  Entergy Nuclear, Inc. provided decommissioning services for the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant.


TLG Services, a subsidiary ofin the Entergy Nuclear, Inc.,Wholesale Commodities segment, offers decommissioning, engineering, and related services to nuclear power plant owners.


In September 2003, Entergy agreed to provideprovides plant operation support services for the 800 MW Cooper Nuclear Station located near Brownville, Nebraska.  The original contract was to expire in 2014 corresponding to the original operating license life of the plant.  In 2006 an Entergy subsidiary signed an agreement to provide license renewal services for the Cooper Nuclear Station.  The Cooper Nuclear Station received its license renewal from the NRC in November 2010. In 2010 an Entergy subsidiary signed an agreement to extend the management support services to Cooper Nuclear Station by 15 years, through January 2029. In 2017 the contract was amended so that it could not be terminated prior to December 21, 2022.


Regulation of Entergy’s Business


Federal Power Act


The Federal Power Act provides the FERC the authority to regulate:


the transmission and wholesale sale of electric energy in interstate commerce;
the reliability of the high voltage interstate transmission system through reliability standards;
sale or acquisition of certain assets;
securities issuances;
the licensing of certain hydroelectric projects;
certain other activities, including accounting policies and practices of electric and gas utilities; and
changes in control of FERC jurisdictional entities or rate schedules.


257

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



The Federal Power Act gives the FERC jurisdiction over the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf capacity and energy provided to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans and over some of the rates charged by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana.Louisiana to unaffiliated wholesale customers. The FERC also regulates wholesale power sales between the provisions ofUtility operating companies. In addition, the System Agreement, including the rates, and the provision of transmission service to wholesale market participants. The FERC also regulates the MISO RTO, an independent entity that maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy, capacity, and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. FERC regulation of the MISO RTO includes regulation of the design and implementation of the wholesale markets administered by the MISO RTO, as well as the rates, terms, and conditions of open access transmission service over the member systems and the allocation of costs associated with transmission upgrades.

266

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Entergy Arkansas holds a FERC license that expires in 2053 for two hydroelectric projects totaling 70 MW of capacity.


State Regulation


Utility


Entergy Arkansas is subject to regulation by the APSC which includesas to the authority to:following:


oversee utility service;
set utility service areas;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
determine reasonablefuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery rider;
terms and adequateconditions of service;
control leasing;service standards;
control the acquisition, sale, or salelease of any public utility plant or property constituting an operating unit or system;
set rates of depreciation;
issue certificates of convenience and necessity and certificates of environmental compatibility and public need;need, as applicable, for generating and transmission facilities;
regulate avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering;
integrated resource planning;
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control; and
the issuance and sale of certain securities.


Additionally, Entergy Arkansas serves a limited number of retail customers in Tennessee. Pursuant to recent legislation enacted in Tennessee, Entergy Arkansas is subject to complaints before the Tennessee Regulatory Authority only if it fails to treat its retail customers in Tennessee in the same manner as its retail customers in Arkansas. Additionally, Entergy Arkansas maintains limited facilities in Missouri but does not provide retail electric service to customers in Missouri. Although Entergy Arkansas obtained a certificate with respect to its Missouri facilities, Entergy Arkansas is not subject to the retail rateratemaking or other regulatory schemejurisdiction in Missouri.


Entergy Louisiana’s electric and gas business is subject to regulation by the LPSC as to:to the following:


utility service;
retail rates and charges;charges, including depreciation rates;
certification of generating facilities and certain transmission projects;
certification of power or capacity purchase contracts;
auditfuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment charge,clause and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission projects;
certification of capacity acquisitions, both for owned capacity and purchase power contracts;
procurement process to acquire over 50 MW;
audits of the environmental adjustment charge, and avoided cost payment to Qualifying Facilities;Facilities, and energy efficiency rider;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control; andcontrol.
depreciation and other matters.


258

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Entergy Mississippi is subject to regulation by the MPSC as to the following:


utility service;
utility service areas;
facilities;
267

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery mechanism;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of generating facilities and certain transmission projects;
retail rates;avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
fuel cost recovery;integrated resource planning;
depreciation rates;net energy metering; and
utility mergers, acquisitions, and other changes of control.


Entergy Mississippi is also subject to regulation by the APSC as to the certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the Independence Station, which is located in Arkansas.


Entergy New Orleans is subject to regulation by the City Council as to the following:


utility service;
retail rates and charges;charges, including depreciation rates;
standardsfuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment charge and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
depreciation and other matters;service standards;
audit of the environmental adjustment charge;
certification of the construction or extension of any new plant, equipment, property, or facility that comprises more than 2% of the utility’s rate base;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering;
issuance and sale of certain securities; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.


To the extent authorized by governing legislation, Entergy Texas is subject to the original jurisdiction of the municipal authorities of a number of incorporated cities in Texas with appellate jurisdiction over such matters residing in the PUCT.  Entergy Texas is also subject to regulation by the PUCT as to:to the following:


retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates, and terms and conditions of service in unincorporated areas of its service territory, and in municipalities that have ceded jurisdiction to the PUCT;
customer fuel recovery, including reconciliations (audits) of the fuel adjustment charges;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission and generation projects; and
utility service areas, including extensions of service into new areas.areas;

avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers, sales/acquisitions/leases of plants over $10 million, sales of greater than 50% voting stock of utilities, and transfers of controlling interest in or operation of utilities.

268

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry


Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Energy Reorganization Act of 1974


Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the operation of nuclear plants is heavily regulated by the NRC, which has broad power to impose licensing and safety-related requirements.  The NRC has broad authority to impose finescivil penalties or shut down a unit, or both, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, as owners of all or portions of ANO, River Bend and Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively, and Entergy Operations, as the licensee and operator of these units, are subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC. Entergy subsidiaries in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment are subject to the NRC’s jurisdiction as the owners and operators of Pilgrim, Indian Point Energy Center, Vermont Yankee,Palisades, and Palisades.  Substantial capital expenditures, increased operating expenses, and/or higher decommissioning costs at Entergy’s nuclear plants because of revised safety requirements of the NRC could be required in the future.Big Rock Point.



259

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982


Spent Nuclear Fuel


Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy Arkansas is the only one of the Utility operating companies that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and has a recorded liability as of December 31, 20172020 of $183.3$192.0 million for the one-time fee. Entergy accepted assignment of the Pilgrim, FitzPatrick, and Indian Point 3, Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2, Vermont Yankee, Palisades, and Big Rock Point spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE held by their previous owners. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the sale of the plant, completed in March 2017. The Vermont Yankee spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to NorthStar as part of the sale of the plant in January 2019. The Pilgrim spent fuel disposal contract was transferred to Holtec as part of the sale of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company in August 2019. The owners of these plants previous ownersto Entergy have paid or retained liability for the fees for all generation prior to the purchase dates of those plants. The fees payable to the DOE may be adjusted in the future to assure full recovery.  Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense.  Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants.  Entergy’s total spent fuel fees to date, including the one-time fee liability of Entergy Arkansas, have surpassed $1.6 billion (exclusive of amounts relating to Entergy plants that were paid or are owed by prior owners of those plants).


The permanent spent fuel repository in the U.S. has been legislated to be Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing (the DOE filed the license application in June 2008) and, after the license is granted by the NRC, proceed with the repository construction and commencement of receipt of spent fuel. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. The DOE continues to delay meeting its obligation. Specific steps were taken to discontinue the Yucca Mountain project, including a motion to the NRC to withdraw the license application with prejudice and the establishment of a commission to develop recommendations for alternative spent fuel storage solutions. In August 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the NRC to continue with the Yucca Mountain license review, but only to the extent of funds previously appropriated by Congress for that purpose and not yet used. Although the NRC completed the safety evaluation report for the license review in 2015, the previously appropriated funds are not sufficient to complete the review, including required hearings. The government has taken no effective action to date related to the recommendations of the appointed spent fuel study commission. Accordingly, large uncertainty remains regarding the time frame under
269

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

which the DOE will begin to accept spent fuel from Entergy’s facilities for storage or disposal. As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at Entergy’s nuclear sites.


Following the defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014. Management cannot predict the potential timing or magnitude of future spent fuel fee revisions that may occur.


As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. These subsidiaries have been, and continue to be, involved in litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2018, 2019, and 2020 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries’ litigation with the DOE.Through 2017,2020, Entergy’s subsidiaries won and collected on judgments against the government totaling over $500approximately $800 million.

260

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


In April 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $29 million in favor of Entergy Arkansas and against the DOE in the second round ANO damages case. Also in April 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $44 million in favor of System Energy and against the DOE in the second round Grand Gulf damages case. In June 2015, Entergy Arkansas and System Energy appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit portions of those decisions relating to cask loading costs. In April 2016 the Federal Circuit issued a decision in both appeals in favor of Entergy Arkansas and System Energy, and remanded the cases back to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In June 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the amount of $49 million in favor of System Energy and against the DOE in the second round Grand Gulf damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in August 2016. In July 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the amount of $31 million in favor of Entergy Arkansas and against the DOE in the second round ANO damages case, and Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in October 2016.
In May 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final partial summary judgment on a portion, $21 million, of the claims in the Palisades case. The DOE did not appeal that decision, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in October 2015.

In December 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $81 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick in the first round Indian Point 3/FitzPatrick damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016.

In January 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $49 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round Waterford 3 damages case. In April 2016, Entergy Louisiana appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit the portion of that decision relating to cask loading costs. After the ANO and Grand Gulf appeal was rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the Waterford 3 case back to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for decision in accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on cask loading costs. In August 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the Waterford 3 case in the amount of $53 million, and Entergy Louisiana received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in November 2016.

In April 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $42 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round River Bend damages case, reserving the issue of cask loading costs pending resolution of the appeal on the same issues in the Entergy Arkansas and System Energy cases. Entergy Louisiana received payment from the U.S. Treasury in August 2016. In September 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a further judgment in the River Bend case in the amount of $5 million. Entergy Louisiana received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2017. In May 2017 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the first round River Bend damages case for $0.6 million, awarding certain cask loading costs that had not previously been adjudicated by the court.
In May 2016, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the DOE entered into a stipulated agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $19 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and against the DOE in the second round Vermont Yankee damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016.

In September 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the Entergy Nuclear Palisades case in the amount of $14 million. Entergy Nuclear Palisades received payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2017.

In October 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the second round Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 case in the amount of $34 million. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 received payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2017.


261

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Management cannot predict the timing or amount of any potential recoveries on other claims filed by Entergy subsidiaries, and cannot predict the timing of any eventual receipt from the DOE of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims damage awards.


Pending DOE acceptance and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the owners of nuclear plants are providing their own spent fuel storage.  Storage capability additions using dry casks began operations at Palisades in 1993, at ANO in 1996, at FitzPatrick in 2002, at River Bend in 2005, at Grand Gulf in 2006, at Indian Point and Vermont Yankee in 2008, and at Waterford 3 in 2011, and at Pilgrim in 2015.2011.  These facilities will be expanded as needed.


Nuclear Plant Decommissioning


Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for ANO, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively.  In addition, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for the portion of River Bend subject to retail rate regulation. The collections are deposited in trust funds that can only be used for future decommissioning costs.in accordance with NRC and other applicable regulatory requirements.  Entergy periodically reviews and updates the estimated decommissioning costs to reflect inflation and changes in regulatory requirements and technology, and then makes applications to the regulatory authorities to reflect, in rates, the changes in projected decommissioning costs.


In December 2018 the APSC ordered collections in rates for decommissioning ANO 2 and found that ANO 1’s decommissioning was adequately funded without additional collections. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a revised decommissioning cost recovery tariff for ANO indicating that both ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning trusts were adequately funded without further collections, and in December 2020, the APSC ordered zero collections for ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning.

In July 2010 the LPSC approved increased decommissioning collections for Waterford 3 and the Louisiana regulated share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls. This LPSC decision contemplated that the level of decommissioning collections could be revisited should the NRC grant license extensions for both Waterford 3 and River Bend. In July 2019, following the NRC approval of license extensions for Waterford 3 and River Bend, Entergy Louisiana made a filing with the LPSC seeking to adjust decommissioning and depreciation rates for those plants, including one proposed scenario that would adjust Louisiana-jurisdictional decommissioning collections to zero for both plants (including an offsetting increase in depreciation rates). Because of the ongoing public health emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying economic uncertainty, Entergy Louisiana determined that the relief sought in the filing was no longer appropriate, and in November 2020, filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the proceeding. Following that filing, in a December 2020 order, the LPSC dismissed the proceeding without prejudice.
270

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


In December 2010 the PUCT approved increased decommissioning collections for the Texas share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls.  In December 20162018 the APSC ordered continuedPUCT approved a settlement that eliminated River Bend decommissioning collections for the Texas jurisdictional share of the plant based on a determination by Entergy Texas that the existing decommissioning for ANO 2, while finding that ANO 1’s decommissioningfund was adequately funded without continued collections. In December 2017 the APSC ordered continued collections for decommissioning for ANO 2, and again found that ANO 1’s decommissioning was adequately funded without continued collections. adequate following license renewal.

In September 2016 the NRC issued a 20-year operating license renewal for Grand Gulf. In a 2017 filing at the FERC, System Energy stated that with the renewed operating license, Grand Gulf’s decommissioning trust was sufficiently funded, and proposed, (amongamong other things)things, to cease decommissioning collections for Grand Gulf effective October 1, 2017. The FERC accepted the proposal subject to refund, and appointed a settlement judge to oversee settlement negotiationsincluding the proposed decommissioning revenue requirement by letter order in the case. August 2018.

Entergy currently believes its decommissioning funding will be sufficient for its nuclear plants subject to retail rate regulation, although decommissioning cost inflation and trust fund performance will ultimately determine the adequacy of the funding amounts.


In November 2016,January 2019, Entergy entered into an agreement to sellsold 100% of the membership interest in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to a subsidiary of NorthStar. Upon closingAs a result of the sale, NorthStar will assumeassumed ownership of Vermont Yankee and its decommissioning and site restoration trusts, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. The sale is subject to certain closing conditions, including approval from the NRC and the State of Vermont Public Utility Commission. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of Vermont Yankee decommissioning costs and see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the NorthStar transaction.


In August 2019, Entergy sold 100% of the equity interests in Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, LLC to a subsidiary of Holtec International. As a result of the sale, Holtec assumed ownership of Pilgrim and its decommissioning trust, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale.

For the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants purchased in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust funds and the decommissioning liabilities with the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume each of the decommissioning liabilities provided that it assigns the corresponding decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to the Entergy subsidiaries.  In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy, which was completed in January 2017. In March 2017, Entergy sold the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon, and as part of the transaction, the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund, along with the decommissioning obligation for that plant, was transferred to Exelon. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the transaction. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the FitzPatrick sale.


262

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



In March 20172020 filings with the NRC were made reporting on decommissioning funding for certainall of Entergy subsidiaries’ nuclear plants reporting on decommissioning funding.plants.  Those reports showed that decommissioning funding for each of thosethe nuclear plants met the NRC’s financial assurance requirements.


Additional information with respect to Entergy’s decommissioning costs and decommissioning trust funds is found in Note 9 and Note 16 to the financial statements.


Price-Anderson Act


The Price-Anderson Act requires that reactor licensees purchase and maintain the maximum amount of nuclear liability insurance available and participate in an industry assessment program called Secondary Financial Protection in order to protect the public in the event of a nuclear power plant accident.  The costs of this insurance
271

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

are borne by the nuclear power industry.  Congress amended and renewed the Price-Anderson Act in 2005 for a term through 2025.  The Price-Anderson Act limits the contingent liability for a single nuclear incident to a maximum assessment of approximately $127.3$137.6 million per reactor (with 10297 nuclear industry reactors currently participating).  In the case of a nuclear event in which Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, or an Entergy Wholesale Commodities company is liable, protection is afforded through a combination of private insurance and the Secondary Financial Protection program. In addition to this, insurance for property damage, costs of replacement power, and other risks relating to nuclear generating units is also purchased.  The Price-Anderson Act and insurance applicable to the nuclear programs of Entergy are discussed in more detail in Note 8 to the financial statements.


NRC Reactor Oversight Process


The NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process is a program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response. The NRC evaluates plant performance by analyzing two distinct inputs: inspection findings resulting from the NRC’s inspection program and performance indicators reported by the licensee. The evaluations result in the placement of each plant in one of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix columns: “licensee response column,” or Column 1, “regulatory response column,” or Column 2, “degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 3, and “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4. Plants in Column 1 are subject to normal NRC inspection activities. Plants in Column 2, Column 3, or Column 4 are subject to progressively increasing levels of inspection by the NRC with, in general, progressively increasing levels of associated costs. Waterford 3, River Bend, Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3,The nuclear generating plants owned and Palisadesoperated by Entergy’s Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses are currently in Column 1.1, except for Grand Gulf, which is currently in Column 2.

In November 2020 the NRC placed Grand Gulf in Column 2 based on the incidence of three unplanned plant scrams during the second and third quarters of 2020.Two of the scram events related to new turbine control system components that failed, and a third related to a feedwater valve positioner that failed, all of which had been replaced in a refueling outage that ended in May 2020. The NRC plans to conduct a supplemental inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 2. ANO 1 and 2 areAs a consequence of two additional Grand Gulf scrams during the fourth quarter 2020, System Energy expects Grand Gulf to be placed into NRC Column 3 based on plant performance indicators for the four quarters ended December 31, 2020. This will involve an additional supplemental NRC inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 4, and are subject to an extensive set of required NRC inspections. Pilgrim is also in Column 4 and is subject to an extensive, but limited, set of required NRC inspections. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the placement of ANO 1 and 2, and Pilgrim in Column 4 of the NRC’s matrix.3.


Environmental Regulation


Entergy’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.  Management believes that Entergy’s businesses are in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted below.  Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance requirements and costs cannot be precisely estimated.  Except to the extent discussed below, at this time compliance with federal, state, and local provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise protecting the environment, is incorporated into the routine cost structure of Entergy’s businesses and is not expected to have a material effect on their competitive position, results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.



263
272

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Clean Air Act and Subsequent Amendments


The Clean Air Act and its amendments establish several programs that currently or in the future may affect Entergy’s fossil-fueled generation facilities and, to a lesser extent, certain operations at nuclear and other facilities.  Individual states also operate similar independent state programs or delegated federal programs that may include requirements more stringent than federal regulatory requirements.  These programs include:


New source review and preconstruction permits for new sources of criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and significant modifications to existing facilities;
Acid rain program for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx);
Acid rain program for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx);
Nonattainment area programs for control of criteria air pollutants, which could include fee assessments for air pollutant emission sources under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act if attainment is not reached in a timely manner;
Hazardous air pollutant emissions reduction programs;
Interstate Air Transport;
Operating permit programs and enforcement of these and other Clean Air Act programs;
Regional Haze programs; and
New and existing source standards for greenhouse gas and other air emissions.


New Source Review (NSR)


Preconstruction permits are required for new facilities and for existing facilities that undergo a modification that results in a significant net emissions increase and is not classified as routine repair, maintenance, or replacement.  Units that undergo certain non-routine modifications must obtain a permit modification and may be required to install additional air pollution control technologies. In December 2020 the EPA amended the NSR regulations to clarify when a physical change or change in the method of operation will constitute such a modification. Entergy has an established process for identifying modifications requiring additional permitting approval and followsis monitoring the regulations and associated guidance provided by the states and the federal government with regard to the determination of routine repair, maintenance, and replacement.  In recentSeveral years ago, however, the EPA has begunimplemented an enforcement initiative, aimed primarily at coal plants, to identify modifications that it does not consider routine for which the unit did not obtain a modified permit.  Various courts and the EPA have been inconsistent in their judgments regarding modifications that are considered routine and on other legal issues that affect this program.


In February 2011, Entergy received a request from the EPA for several categories of information concerning capital and maintenance projects at the White Bluff and Independence facilities, both located in Arkansas, in order to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act, including NSR requirements and air permits issued by the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality.Quality (ADEQ). In August 2011, Entergy’s Nelson facility, located in Louisiana, received a similar request for information from the EPA. In September 2015 a subsequentan additional request for similar information was received for the White Bluff facility. Entergy responded to all requests. None of these EPA requests for information alleged that the facilities were in violation of law.


In January 2018 and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Independence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. In November 2018, following extensive negotiations, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Power entered a proposed settlement resolving those claims as well as other issues facing Entergy Arkansas’s fossil generation plants. The settlement, which formally resolves a complaint filed by the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, is reviewing these claims and will respond accordingly.

subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In October 2019 the District Court requested supplemental briefing on several issues to be resolved prior to addressing the motion to approve the
264
273

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



settlement; that briefing was completed in May 2020. For further information about the settlement, see “Regional Haze” discussed below.
Ozone Nonattainment

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Entergy Texas operates one fossil-fueled generating facility (Lewis Creek) and is in
The Clean Air Act requires the process of permitting and constructing one fossil-fueled facility (Montgomery Count Power Station) in a geographic area that is not in attainment with the currently-enforced national ambient air quality standardsEPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.  The nonattainmentozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide, and requires periodic review of those standards. When an area that affects Entergy Texasfails to meet an ambient standard, it is the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area.  Areasconsidered to be in nonattainment areand is classified as “marginal,” “moderate,” “serious,” or “severe.” When an area fails to meet the ambient air standard, the EPA requires state regulatory authorities to prepare state implementation plans meant to cause progress toward bringing the area into attainment with applicable standards.


The Houston-Galveston-BrazoriaOzone Nonattainment

Entergy Texas operates two fossil-fueled generating facilities (Lewis Creek and Montgomery County Power Station) in a geographic area was originally classified as “moderate” nonattainment under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard with an attainment date of June 15, 2010.  In June 2007 the Texas governor petitioned the EPA to reclassify Houston-Galveston-Brazoria from “moderate” to “severe” and the EPA granted the request in October 2008.  In February 2015 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted a request to the EPA for a finding that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area is not in attainment with the 1997 8-hourapplicable NAAQS for ozone.  The ozone standard. The EPA issued this finding in December 2015. In April 2015 the EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS and in May 2016, the EPA issued a proposed rule approving a substitute fornonattainment area that affects Entergy Texas is the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area.  This redesignation indicates thatBoth Lewis Creek and the Montgomery County Power Station hold all necessary permits for construction and operation and comply with applicable air quality program regulations. Measures enacted to return the area has attained the revoked 1997 8-hourto ozone NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions and that it will maintain that NAAQS for 10 years from the date of the approval. Final approval, which was effective in December 2016, resulted in the area no longer being subject to any remaining anti-backsliding or non-attainment new source review requirements associated with the revoked 1997 NAAQS.

In March 2008 the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone, creating the potential for additional counties and parishes in which Entergy operates to be placed in nonattainment status.  In April 2012 the EPA released its final non-attainment designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.  In Entergy’s utility service area, the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, Texas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Memphis, Tennessee/Mississippi/Arkansas areas were designated as in “marginal” nonattainment. In August 2015 and January 2016, the EPA proposed determinations that the Baton Rouge and Memphis areas had attained the 2008 standard. In May 2016 the EPA finalized those determinations and extended the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area’s attainment date for the 2008 Ozone standard to July 20, 2016 and reclassified the Baton Rouge area as attainment for ozone under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. In December 2016 the EPA determined that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area had failed to attain the 2008 ozone standard by the 2016 attainment date. This finding reclassifies the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area from marginal to “moderate.”

In October 2015 the EPA issued a final rule lowering the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 70 parts per billion. States were required to assess their attainment status and recommend designations to the EPA. In January 2018 the EPA proposed that the following counties and parishes in Entergy’s service territory be listed as in non-attainment: in Louisiana, Ascension Parish, East Baton Rouge Parish, West Baton Rouge Parish, Iberville Parish, and Livingston Parish; in Texas, Montgomery County. In addition to Lewis Creek in Montgomery County, Texas, Entergy owns or operates fossil-fueled generating units in East Baton Rouge Parish (Louisiana Station) and in Iberville Parish (Willow Glen), Louisiana. The EPA’s final designations are pending.could make these program regulations more stringent. Entergy will continue to work with state environmental agencies on appropriate methods for assessing attainment and non-attainmentnonattainment with the new standard and, where necessary, in planning for compliance. Following designations by the EPA, states will be required to develop plans intended to return non-attainment areas to a condition of attainment. The timing for that action depends largely on the severity of non-attainment in a given area.ozone NAAQS.


Potential SO2Nonattainment


The EPA issued a final rule in June 2010 adopting an SO2 1-hour national ambient air quality standard of 75 parts per billion.  The EPA designations for counties in attainment and nonattainment were originally due in June 2012, but the EPA indicated that it would delay designations except for those areas with existing monitoring data from 2009 to 2011 indicating violations of the new standard. In August 2013 the EPA issued final designations for these areas. In Entergy’s utility service territory, only St. Bernard Parish and Evangeline Parish in Louisiana isare designated as non-attainment for the SO2

265

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


1-hour national ambient air quality standard of 75 parts per billion. Entergy does not have a generation asset in that parish. In July 2016 the EPA finalized another round of designations for areas with newly monitored violations of the 2010 standard and those with stationary sources that emit over a threshold amount of SO2. Counties and parishes in which Entergy owns and operates fossil generating facilities that were included in this round of designations include Independence County and Jefferson County, Arkansas and Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Independence County and Calcasieu Parish were designated “unclassifiable,” and Jefferson County was designated “unclassifiable/attainment.” In August 2015 the EPA issued a final data requirement rule for the SO2 1-hour standard. This rule will guide the process to be followed by the states and the EPA to determine the appropriate designation for the remaining unclassified areas in the country.nonattainment. In August 2017 the EPA issued a letter indicating that East Baton Rouge and St. Charles parishes would be designated by December 31, 2020, as monitors were installed to determine compliance. In January 2018December 2020 the EPA published adesignated East Baton Rouge, St. Charles, St. James, and West Baton Rouge parishes in Louisiana as attainment/unclassifiable, and, in Texas, Jefferson County as attainment/unclassifiable and Orange County as unclassifiable. Challenges to these final rule designating a third rounddesignations must be filed within 60 days of attainment and non-attainment areas. Evangeline Parish, Louisiana, was designated non-attainment. publication in the Federal Register. Entergy does not have a generation asset in that parish. Additional capital projects or operational changes may be requiredcontinues to continue operating Entergy facilities in areas eventually designated as in non-attainment of the standard or designated as contributing to non-attainment areas.monitor this situation.


Hazardous Air Pollutants


The EPA released the final Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule in December 2011, which had a compliance date, with a widely granted one-year extension, of April 2016. The required controls have been installed and are operational at all affected Entergy units. In May 2020 the EPA finalized a rule that finds that it is not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants from electric steam generating units under the provisions of section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act. This is a reversal of the EPA’s previous finding requiring such regulation. The final appropriate and necessary finding does not revise the underlying MATS rule. Several lawsuits have been filed challenging the appropriate and necessary finding. Entergy will continue to monitor this situation.


Cross-State Air Pollution


In March 2005 the EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was intended to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from electric generation plants in order to improve air quality in twenty-nine eastern states. The rule required a combination of capital investment to install pollution control equipment and increased operating costs through the purchase of emission allowances. Entergy began implementation in 2007, including installation of controls at several facilities and the development of an emission allowance procurement strategy.


274

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Based on several court challenges, CAIR and its subsequent versions, now known as the Cross StateCross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), have been remanded to and modified by the EPA on multiple occasions. In July 2015 the D.C. Circuit invalidated the allowance budgets created by the EPA for several states, including Texas, and remanded that portion of the rule to the EPA for further action. The court did not stay or vacate the rule in the interim. CSAPR remains in effect.

The CSAPR Phase 1 implementation became effective January 1, 2015. Entergy has developed a compliance plan that could, over time, include both installation of controls at certain facilities and an emission allowance procurement strategy.

In September 2016 the EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Starting in 2017 the final rule will requirerequires reductions in summer nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Several states, including Arkansas and Texas, filed a challenge to the Update Rule. In September 2019 the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA’s underlying approach to the Update Rule, whichbut determined that it was inconsistent with the Clean Air Act because it failed to include deadlines consistent with downwind states’ deadlines for attainment. The court remanded the rule to the EPA for further consideration, but did not vacate so the rule remains pending.in effect pending the EPA’s further review. In October 2020 the EPA issued its proposal intended to address the D.C. Circuit’s remand. The draft rule proposes to finalize interstate transport obligations for 21 states. For nine states, including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas, the EPA proposes that additional emission reductions are not necessary. For 12 states, however, including Louisiana, the EPA proposes additional emission reductions through proposed reductions in the number of NOx emission allowances allocated to each state. Entergy, through its various trade associations, filed comments on the proposal and will continue to monitor the rulemaking and its potential impact on its facilities in Louisiana. If the October 2020 proposal is finalized, ozone season NOx emissions may become more expensive in Louisiana.


Regional Haze


In June 2005 the EPA issued its final Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) regulations that potentially could result in a requirement to install SO2 and NOx pollution control technology as Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART) to continue operating certain of Entergy’s fossil generation units.  The rule leaves certain CAVR determinations to the states.


In Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) prepared a state implementation plan (SIP) for Arkansas facilities to implement its obligations under the CAVR.   In April 2012 the EPA finalized a decision

266

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


addressing the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, in which it disapproved a large portion of the Arkansas plan, including the emission limits for NOx and SO2 at White Bluff.  In April 2015 the EPA published a proposed federal implementation plan (FIP) for Arkansas, taking comment on requiring installation of scrubbers and low NOx burners to continue operating both units at the White Bluff plant and both units at the Independence plant and NOx controls to continue operating the Lake Catherine plant. Entergy filed comments by the deadline in August 2015. Among other comments, including opposition to the EPA’s proposed controls on the Independence units, Entergy proposed to meet more stringent SO2 and NOx limits at both White Bluff and Independence within three years of the effective date of the final FIP and to cease the use of coal at the White Bluff units at a later date.


In September 2016 the EPA published the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP. In most respects, the EPA finalized its original proposal but shortened the time for compliance for installation of the NOx controls. The FIP required an emission limitation consistent with SO2 scrubbers at both White Bluff and Independence by October 2021 and NOx controls by April 2018. The EPA declined to adopt Entergy’s proposals related to ceasing coal use as an alternative to SO2 scrubbers for White Bluff SO2 BART. In November 2016, Entergy and other interested parties, including the State of Arkansas, filed petitions for administrative reconsideration and stay at the EPA as well as petitions for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit continues to review its prior grant ofgranted the government’s motion to hold the appeal litigation in abeyancestay pending settlement discussions and pending the State’s development of a SIP that, if approved by the EPA, would replace the FIP. The state hashad proposed its replacement SIP in two parts: Part I considers NOx requirements, and Part II considers SO2 requirements. The EPA approved the Part I NOx SIP in January 2018. The Part I SIP requires that Entergy address NOx impacts on visibility via compliance with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ozone-season emission trading program. Arkansas has proposedfinalized a Part II SIP which has been approved by the EPA but is still under considerationcurrently pending a state court appeal. That appeal has been stayed pending the outcome of a federal court case, which may resolve many of the issues on appeal. The final Part II SIP requires that Entergy achieve SO2 emission reductions via the use of low-sulfur coal at both White Bluff and Independence within three years. The
275

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Part II SIP also requires that Entergy cease to use coal at White Bluff by December 31, 2028 and notes the current planning assumption that Entergy’s Independence units will cease to use coal by December 31, 2030.

In January and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the state level. The public comment period onIndependence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. In November 2018, following extensive negotiations, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Power entered a proposed settlement resolving those claims and reducing the risk that Entergy Arkansas, as operator of Independence and White Bluff, might be compelled under the Clean Air Act’s regional haze program to install costly emissions control technologies. Consistent with the terms of the settlement and in many cases also the Part II endedSIP, Entergy Arkansas, along with co-owners, will begin using only low-sulfur coal at Independence and White Bluff by mid-2021; cease to use coal at White Bluff and Independence by the end of 2028 and 2030, respectively; cease operation of the remaining gas unit at Lake Catherine by the end of 2027; reserve the option to develop new generating sources at each plant site; and commit to install or propose to regulators at least 800 MWs of renewable generation by the end of 2027, with at least half installed or proposed by the end of 2022 (which includes two existing Entergy Arkansas projects) and with all qualifying co-owner projects counting toward satisfaction of the obligation. Under the settlement, the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association also waive certain potential existing claims under federal and state environmental law with respect to specified generating plants. The settlement, which formally resolves a complaint filed by the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The EPA, which is allowed to comment on February 2, 2018.such a settlement agreement, has stated that it has no objections to the settlement. In November 2020 the court denied motions by the Arkansas Attorney General and the Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition to intervene and to stay the proceedings. The proposed intervenors did not appeal the ruling. Still pending before the court is a motion by the plaintiffs to approve the settlement, in support of which Entergy made a filing. The Arkansas Attorney General also filed an application before the APSC in December 2018 seeking an investigation into the effects of the settlement. The Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition filed to support the Arkansas Attorney General’s application, and Entergy Arkansas filed a motion to dismiss it. The application remains pending before the APSC. In October 2019 the District Court requested supplemental briefing on several issues prior to addressing the motion to approve the settlement; that briefing concluded in May 2020.


In Louisiana, Entergy has worked with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the EPA to revise the Louisiana SIP for regional haze, which washad been disapproved in part in 2012. The LDEQ submitted a revised SIP in February 2017. In May 2017 the EPA proposed to approve a majority of the revisions. In September 2017 the EPA issued a proposed SIP approval for the Nelson plant, requiring an emission limitation consistent with the use of low-sulfur coal, with a compliance date three years from the effective date of the finalJanuary 22, 2021. The EPA approval. The EPA’sissued final approval decision was issued in December 2017 and is on appeal2017. The EPA approval was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In October 2019 the Fifth Circuit affirmed the EPA’s SIP approval. A petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs was denied by the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiffs did not petition for further review by the Supreme Court.


The second planning period (2018-2028) for the regional haze program requires states to examine sources for impacts on visibility and to prepare SIPs by 2021. Entergy received information collection requests from Arkansas and Louisiana requesting an evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of various NOx and SO2 control technologies for Independence, Nelson 6, and Ninemile. Responses to the information requests have been submitted to the respective state agencies.

New and Existing Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions


As a part of a climate plan announced in June 2013,In July 2019 the EPA was directedreleased the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE), which applies only to (i) reissue proposed carbon pollution standardsexisting coal-fired electric generating units. The ACE determines that heat rate improvements are the best system of emission reductions and lists six candidate technologies for new power plantsconsideration by September 20, 2013, with finalization of the rules to occur in a timely manner; (ii) issue proposed carbon pollution standards, regulations, or guidelines, as appropriate, for modified, reconstructed,states at each coal unit. The rule and existing power plants no later than June 1, 2014; (iii) finalize those rulesassociated rulemakings by no later than June 1, 2015; and (iv) include in the guidelines addressing existing power plants a requirement that states submit to the EPA replace the implementation plans required under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations by no later than June 30, 2016. In January 2014 the EPA issued the proposed New Source Performance Standards rule for new sources. In June 2014 the EPA issued proposed standards for existing power plants.  Entergy was actively engaged in the rulemaking process, and submitted comments to the EPA in December 2014. The EPA issued the final rules for both new and existing sources in August 2015, and they were published in the Federal Register in October 2015. The existing source rule, also called theObama administration’s Clean Power Plan, requires states to develop plans for compliance with the EPA’s emission standards. In February 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay halting the effectiveness of the rule until the rule is reviewed by the D.C. Circuit and by the U.S. Supreme Court, if further review is granted. In March 2017 the current administration issued an executive order entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth” instructing the EPA to review and then to suspend, revise, or rescind the Clean Power Plan, if appropriate. The EPA subsequently asked the D.C. Circuit to hold the challenges to the Clean Power Plan and the greenhouse gas new source performance standards in abeyance and signed a notice of withdrawal of the proposed federal plan, model trading rules, and the Clean Energy Incentive Program. The court placed the litigation in abeyance in April 2017. The EPA Administrator also sent a letter to the affected governors explaining that states are not currently required to meet Clean Power Plan deadlines, some of which have passed. In October 2017 the EPA proposed a new rule that would repeal the Clean Power Plan on the grounds that it exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority under the Clean Air Act. In December

established
267
276

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



2017national emissions performance rates for existing fossil-fuel fired steam electric generating units and combustion turbines. The ACE rule provides states discretion in determining how the best system for emission reductions applies to individual units, including through the consideration of technical feasibility and the remaining useful life of the facility. The ADEQ and the LDEQ have issued information collection requests to Entergy facilities to help the states collect the information needed to determine the best system of emission reductions for each facility. Entergy responded to the requests and will continue to monitor litigation challenging the rule. In January 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated ACE. The court held that ACE relied on an incorrect interpretation of the Clean Air Act that the statute expressly forecloses emission reduction approaches, such as emissions trading and generating shifting, that cannot be applied at and to the individual source. The court remanded ACE to the EPA issued an advanced noticefor further consideration and also vacated the repeal of proposed rulemaking regarding section 111(d), seeking comment on the form and content of a replacement for the Clean Power Plan, if onePlan. The vacatur will not be effective until the court issues its mandate which is promulgated.being held until after disposition of any petitions for rehearing. Entergy will continueis currently reviewing the court’s opinion.

In 2018 the EPA proposed a revision to be engagedthe new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions that primarily impacts new coal units and, therefore, should not impact Entergy. In January 2021 the EPA finalized a pollutant-specific contribution finding for greenhouse gas emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed electric generating units. The rule establishes a three percent threshold for determining when a pollutant significantly contributes to air pollution and reaffirms the EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act Section 111(b) requires the EPA to make pollutant-specific significant contribution findings before promulgation of a new source performance standard. The EPA did not, however, finalize the new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions and intends to address the 2018 proposal in this rulemaking process.a future action.


Potential Legislative, Regulatory, and Judicial Developments


In addition to the specific instances described above, there are a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives concerning air emissions, as well as other media, that are under consideration at the federal, state, and local level.  Because of the nature of Entergy’s business, the imposition of any of these initiatives could affect Entergy’s operations.  Entergy continues to monitor these initiatives and activities in order to analyze their potential operational and cost implications.  These initiatives include:


designation by the EPA and state environmental agencies of areas that are not in attainment with national ambient air quality standards;
introduction of bills in Congress and development of regulations by the EPA proposing further limits on NOx, SO2, mercury, and carbon dioxide and other air emissions.  New legislation or regulations applicable to stationary sources could take the form of market-based cap-and-trade programs, direct requirements for the installation of air emission controls onto air emission sources, or other or combined regulatory programs;
introduction of bills in Congress and development of regulations by the EPA proposing further limits on NOx, SO2, mercury, and carbon dioxide and other air emissions.  New legislation or regulations applicable to stationary sources could take the form of market-based cap-and-trade programs, direct requirements for the installation of air emission controls onto air emission sources, or other or combined regulatory programs;
efforts in Congress or at the EPA to establish a mandatory federal carbon dioxide emission tax, control structure, or unit performance standards;
revisions to the estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon and its use for regulatory impact analysis of Federalfederal laws and regulations;
implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative by several states in the northeastern United States and similar actions in other regions of the United States;
efforts on the local, state, and federal level to codify renewable portfolio standards, a clean energy standard,standards, or a similar mechanism requiring utilities to produce or purchase a certain percentage of their power from defined renewable energy sources or energy sources with lower emissions;
efforts to develop more stringent state water quality standards, effluent limitations for Entergy’s industry sector, stormwater runoff control regulations, and cooling water intake structure requirements;
efforts to restrict the previously-approved continued use of oil-filled equipment containing certain levels of PCBs;polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
efforts by certain external groups to encourage reporting and disclosure of carbon dioxide emissionsenvironmental, social, and governance risk;
277

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

the listing of additional species as threatened or endangered, the protection of critical habitat for these species, and developments in the legal protection of eagles and migratory birds; and
the regulation of the management, disposal, and beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals.residuals; and

the regulation of the management and disposal and recycling of equipment associated with renewable and clean energy sources such as used solar panels, wind turbine blades, hydrogen usage, or battery storage.

Entergy continues to support national legislation that would increase planning certainty for electric utilities while addressing carbon dioxide emissions in aan economy-wide, responsible, and flexible manner.  By virtue of its proportionally large investment in low-emitting gas-fired and nuclear generation technologies, Entergy has a low overall carbon dioxide emission “intensity,” or rate of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt-hour of electricity generated.  In anticipation of the imposition of carbon dioxide emission limits on the electric industry, in the future, Entergy initiated actions designed to reduce its exposure to potential new governmental requirements related to carbon dioxide emissions.  These voluntary actions included establishment of a formal program to stabilize owned power plant carbon dioxide emissions at 2000 levels through 2005, and Entergy succeeded in reducing emissions below 2000 levels. Total carbon dioxide emissions representing Entergy’s ownership share of power plants in the United States were approximately 53.2 million tons in 2000 and 35.6 million tons in 2005.  In 2006, Entergy changed its method of calculating emissions to includestarted including emissions from controllable power purchases as well asin addition to its ownership share of generation.  Entergygeneration and established a second formal voluntary program to stabilize power plant carbon dioxide emissions and emissions from controllable power purchases, cumulatively over the period, at 20% below 2000 levels through 2010.  In 2011, Entergy extended this commitment through 2020.  In 2020, Entergy succeeded in achieving its initial climate commitment to reduce carbon dioxide cumulative emissions by 20% from 2000 levels. Total carbon dioxide emissions representing Entergy’s ownership share of power plants and controllable power purchases in the United States were approximately 46.139.1 million tons in 2011, 45.52020 and 40.7 million tons in 2012, 46.2 million tons2019. Since its original commitment in 2013, 42.4 million tons in 2014, 39.5 million tons in 2015, 42.5 million tons in 2016, and 39.9 million tons in 2017. The decrease2001, Entergy’s cumulative emissions are approximately 7.6% below its 2020 goal.

268

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies,voluntarily conducted a climate scenario analysis and System Energy


published a comprehensive report in this number from 2014 to 2015 was largely attributable toMarch 2019. The report follows the impact on the calculation methodologyframework and recommendations of the Utility operating companies’ transition into the MISO system. Participation in this systemTask Force on Climate-related Disclosures, describing climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Scenario analyses resulted in fewer power purchases being classified as “controllable”Entergy developing and thus included inpublishing a new goal of reducing the calculation of theUtility’s emission rate by 50 percent from 2000 levels by 2030. In September 2020, Entergy committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions total.by 2050, while continuing its commitment to grid reliability and affordability for customers. In December 2020, Entergy published a report regarding this long-term commitment that describes its approach and technology point-of-view. Technology research and development, innovation, and advancement are critical to Entergy’s ability to meet this climate commitment.

Entergy participates in the M.J. Bradley & Associates’ Annual Benchmarking Air Emissions Report, an annual analysis of the 100 largest U.S. electric power producers. The report is available on the M.J. Bradley website. Entergy’s annual CO2greenhouse gas emissions auditinventory is also third-party verified, and that certification is made available on the American Carbon Registry website. Entergy participates annually in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and in 20172020 was listed on the North American Index. Entergy has been listed on the World or North American Index, or both, for nineteen consecutive years. Entergy also participated in the 2020 CDP and CDP Water evaluations, receiving a ‘B’ for both responses.


Clean Water Act


The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act) provide the statutory basis for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, section 402, and the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States.  The Clean Water Act requires virtually all discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to be permitted.  Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act regulates cooling water intake structures, section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a water quality certification from the state in support of certain federal actions and approvals, and section 404 regulates the dredge and fill of waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands.

NPDES Permits and Section 401 Water Quality Certifications

NPDES permits are subject to renewal every five years.  Consequently, Entergy is currently in various stages of the data evaluation and discharge permitting process for its power plants.  

For thirteen years, Entergy participated in an administrative permitting process with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for renewal of the Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 discharge permit.  That proceeding recently was settled along with other ongoing proceedings. For a discussion of the recent Indian Point settlement, see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Authorization to Operate Indian Point” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis.

316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structures

The EPA finalized regulations in July 2004 governing the intake of water at large existing power plants employing cooling water intake structures. The rule sought to reduce perceived impacts on aquatic resources by requiring covered facilities to implement technology or other measures to meet EPA-targeted reductions in water use and corresponding perceived aquatic impacts. Entergy, other industry members and industry groups, environmental groups, and a coalition of northeastern and mid-Atlantic states challenged various aspects of the rule. After litigation, the EPA issued a new final 316(b) rule in August 2014. Entergy is developing a compliance plan for each affected facility in accordance with the requirements of the final rule.

Entergy filed a petition for review of the final rule as a co-petitioner with the Utility Water Act Group. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument in September 2017. A decision is expected in 2018.

Coastal Zone Management Act

Before a federal licensing agency (such as the NRC) may issue a major license or permit for an activity within the federally designated coastal zone, the agency must be satisfied that the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), as applicable, have been met. In many cases, CZMA requirements are satisfied by the state’s written concurrence with a “consistency determination” filed by the federal license applicant explaining why the activity proposed to be federally licensed is consistent with the state’s coastal management program. For a discussion of the recent Indian Point settlement, including the CZMA proceedings related to Indian Point license renewal, see “Entergy


269
278

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines
Wholesale Commodities Authorizations
The 2015 Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) rule required, among other things, that there be no discharge of bottom ash transport water. In October 2020 the EPA issued its final rule revision on bottom ash transport water allowing the discharge of up to Operate Indian Point10% system volume for certain purge waters, including storm events and non-routine operations. The final rule requires compliance as soon as possible beginning October 31, 2021, but no later than December 31, 2025. Several challenges to the final rule have been filed. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously vacated and remanded the provisions of the rule related to legacy wastewater and leachate, which the EPA plans to address in a separate rulemaking. Despite the final rule and pending challenges, Entergy Corporationis implementing projects at its White Bluff and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial DiscussionIndependence plants to convert to zero-discharge systems to comply with the ELG rule and Analysis.the coal combustion residuals restrictions on impoundments. Additionally, the Nelson Unit 6 facility is implementing operational and maintenance measures to minimize the potential for discharge of bottom ash transport water from the existing bottom ash handling system at the site, and is reviewing the effectiveness of these changes for compliance with the requirements of the October 2020 final rule.


Federal Jurisdiction of Waters of the United States


In September 2013February 2019 the EPA and the U.S. Army Corpspublished its proposed revised definition of Engineers announced the intention to propose a rule to clarify federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over waters of the United States. The announcement was made in conjunction with the EPA’s release of a draft scientific report on the “connectivity” of waters that the agency said would inform the rulemaking. This report was finalized in January 2015. The final rule was published in the Federal Register in June 2015. The rule could significantly increase the number and types of waters included in the EPA’s and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction, which in turn could pose additional permitting and pollutant management burdens on Entergy’s operations. The final rule has been challenged in various federal courts by several parties, including most states. In August 2015 the District Court for North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction staying the new rule in 13 states, including Arkansas. In October 2015 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the rule. In February 2017 the current administration issued an executive order instructing the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the Waters of the United States, which proposes to narrow the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, as compared to a 2015 definition which had been stayed by several federal courts. The final rule was released in January 2020 and to revise or rescind, as appropriate.effective in June 2020. In June 2017October 2019 the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a proposed rule that rescinds the June 2015 rule and recodifies the definition of “waters of the U.S.” that was in effect prior to the 2015 rule. The administration is expected to propose a definition of “waters of the U.S.” at a later date. In January 2018 the Supreme Court determined that the Sixth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over the petition to reviewrepealed the 2015 rule and thatre-codified the pre-existing regulations. That rule was effective late December 2019. Numerous challenges should be heard in the federal district court. The matter hashave been remanded to the Sixth Circuit, which is expected to lift the nationwide stay. After the Supreme Court decision, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finalized a rule delaying the applicability date of the 2015 rule to early 2020. In February 2018 the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas filed suit in Texas federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction of the 2015 rule. Entergy will continue to monitor this rulemaking and litigation.against both rules.


Groundwater at Certain Nuclear Sites


The NRC requires nuclear power plants to monitor and report regularly the presence of radioactive material in the environment.  Entergy joined other nuclear utilities and the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2006 to develop a voluntary groundwater monitoring and protection program.  This initiative began after detection of very low levels of radioactive material, primarily tritium, in groundwater at several plants in the United States.  Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that occurs naturally and is also a byproduct of nuclear plant operations.  In addition to tritium, other radionuclides have been found in site groundwater at nuclear plants.


As part of the groundwater monitoring and protection program, Entergy has: (1) performed reviews of plant groundwater characteristics (hydrology) and historical records of past events on site that may have potentially impacted groundwater; (2) implemented fleet procedures on how to handle events that could impact groundwater; and (3) installed groundwater monitoring wells and began periodic sampling.  The program also includes protocols for notifying local officials if contamination is found.  To date, radionuclides such as tritium have been detected at Arkansas Nuclear One, Indian Point, Palisades, Pilgrim, Grand Gulf, Vermont Yankee, and River Bend.  Each of these sites has installed groundwater monitoring wells and implemented a program for testing groundwater at the sites for the presence of tritium and other radionuclides.  Based on current information, the concentrations and locations of radionuclides detected at these plants pose no threat to public health or safety, but each site continues to evaluate the results from its groundwater monitoring program.

In February 2016, Entergy disclosed that elevated tritium levels had been detected in samples from several monitoring wells that are part of Indian Point’s groundwater monitoring program.  Investigation of the source of elevated tritium has determined that the source is related to a temporary system to process water in preparation for the regularly scheduled refueling outage at Indian Point 2. The system was secured and is no longer in use and additional measures have been taken to prevent reoccurrence should the system be needed again. In June 2016, Indian Point detected trace amounts of cobalt 58 in a single well. This was associated with the draining and disassembly of a temporary heat

270

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


exchanger operated in support of the Indian Point 2 outage. Oversight by NRC and other federal/state government bodies continues. The NRC has issued a green notice of violation related to the adequacy of Entergy’s controls to prevent the introduction of radioactivity into the site groundwater. Entergy has completed all required corrective actions and expects the NRC to close the notice of violation by March 2018.


Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980


The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), authorizes the EPA to mandate clean-up by, or to collect reimbursement of clean-up costs from, owners or operators of sites at which hazardous substances may be or have been released.  Certain private parties also may use CERCLA to recover response costs.  Parties that transported hazardous substances to these sites or arranged for the disposal of the substances are also deemed liable by CERCLA.  CERCLA has been interpreted to impose strict, joint, and several liability on responsible parties.  Many states have adopted programs similar to CERCLA.  Entergy subsidiaries in the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses have sent waste materials to various
279

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

disposal sites over the years, and releases have occurred at Entergy facilities.facilities including nuclear facilities that have been or will be sold to decommissioning companies.  In addition, environmental laws now regulate certain of Entergy’s operating procedures and maintenance practices that historically were not subject to regulation.  Some disposal sites used by Entergy subsidiaries have been the subject of governmental action under CERCLA or similar state programs, resulting in site clean-up activities.  Entergy subsidiaries have participated to various degrees in accordance with their respective potential liabilities in such site clean-ups and have developed experience with clean-up costs.  The affected Entergy subsidiaries have established provisions for the liabilities for such environmental clean-up and restoration activities.  Details of potentially material CERCLA and similar state program liabilities are discussed in the “Other Environmental Matters” section below.


Coal Combustion Residuals


In June 2010 the EPA issued a proposed rule on coal combustion residuals (CCRs) that contained two primary regulatory options: (1) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or received (including stored) in surface impoundments as so-called “special wastes” under the hazardous waste program of RCRAResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C; or (2) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments as non-hazardous wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA.  Under both options, CCRs that are beneficially reused in certain processes would remain excluded from hazardous waste regulation. In April 2015 the EPA published the final CCR rule with the material being regulated under the second scenario presented above - as non-hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA Subtitle D.


The final regulations create new compliance requirements including modified storage, new notification and reporting practices, product disposal considerations, and CCR unit closure criteria.  Entergy believes that on-site disposal options will be available at its facilities, to the extent needed for CCR that cannot be transferred for beneficial reuse. As of December 31, 2017, Entergy’s2020, Entergy has recorded asset retirement obligations related to CCR management of $8.6 million, including $3.9 million at Entergy Arkansas, $1.8 million at Entergy Louisiana, $1.1 million at Entergy Mississippi, and $1.3 million at Entergy Texas.$20.1 million.


In December 2016 the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) was signed into law, which authorizes states to regulate coal ash rather than leaving primary enforcement to citizen suit actions. States may submit to the EPA proposals for a permit programs. In September 2017program.

Pursuant to the EPA agreedRule, Entergy operates groundwater monitoring systems surrounding its coal combustion residual landfills located at White Bluff, Independence, and Nelson. Monitoring to reconsiderdate has detected concentrations of certain provisions oflisted constituents in the CCR rule in light of the WIIN Act. The EPAarea, but has not yet initiated a new round of rulemakingindicated that these constituents originated at the active landfill cells. Reporting has occurred as required, and did not extenddetection monitoring will continue as the existing mid-October 2017 groundwater monitoring deadline. Entergy met the existing monitoring deadline, is monitoring state agency actions, and will participate in the regulatory development process.

rule requires. In late-2017, Entergy determined that certain in-ground wastewater treatment system recycle ponds at its White Bluff and Independence facilities require management under the new EPA regulations. EntergyConsequently, in order to move away from using the recycle ponds, White Bluff and Independence each have installed a new permanent bottom ash handling system that does not fall under the CCR rule. As of November 2020, both sites are operating the new system and no longer are sending waste to the recycle ponds. Each site has commenced closure of one of its two recycle ponds, with the remaining pond being held in reserve during initial operation of the new bottom ash handling system. Closure of the remaining recycle pond at each site will commence as soon as possible, but no later than April 11, 2021, which is taking actionthe deadline under the finalized CCR rule to address the operational and regulatory managementcommence closure of these facilities. Entergy also has monitored levels of constituents in the groundwater monitoring system surrounding its coal combustion residual landfills at these locations that require reporting and additional monitoring. Reporting has occurred as required, and monitoring will continue.any unlined recycle ponds. Any potential

271

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


requirements for corrective action or operational changes under the new EPACCR rule are currently beingcontinue to be assessed. Moreover,Notably, ongoing litigation has resulted in the rule is currently underEPA’s continuing review atof the EPA for potential changes, andrule. Consequently, the nature and cost of anyadditional corrective action requirements may depend, in part, on the outcome of the EPA’s review.


280

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Environmental Matters


Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas


Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, currently is involved in the second phase of the remedial investigation of the Lake Charles Service Center site, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  A manufactured gas plant (MGP) is believed to have operated at this site from approximately 1916 to 1931.  Coal tar, a by-product of the distillation process employed at MGPs, apparently was routed to a portion of the property for disposal.  The same area also has been used as a landfill.  In 1999, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. signed a second administrative consent order with the EPA to perform a removal action at the site.  Removal actions addressed contaminated source material, soil, and sediment and included capping certain soil on and off-site. In 2002 approximately 7,400 tons of contaminated soil and debris were excavated and disposed of from an area within the service center.  In 2003 a cap was constructed over the remedial area to prevent the migration of contamination to the surface.  In August 2005 an administrative order was issued by the EPA requiring that a 10-year groundwater study be conducted at this site.  The groundwater monitoring study commenced in January 2006 and is continuing.2006.  The EPA released the second Five Year Review in 2015. TheIn that review, the EPA indicated that the current remediation technique was insufficient and that Entergy would need to utilize other remediation technologies on the site. In July 2015, Entergy submitted a Focused Feasibility Study to the EPA outlining the potential remedies and suggesting installation of the new remedial method, a waterloo barrier. The estimated cost for this remedy is approximately $2 million.million, to be allocated between Entergy is awaiting commentsLouisiana and direction from the EPA on the Focused Feasibility Study and potential remedy selection.Entergy Texas.  In early 2017 the EPA indicated that the new remedial method, a waterloo barrier may not be necessary and requested revisions to the Focused Feasibility Study. The EPA plans to provide comments onreleased the revised 2017 Focused Feasibility Study in the nextthird Five Year Review in 2020. Entergylate-2019 confirming that a new remedial method is continuing discussions withnot necessary but requiring continuation of the current groundwater monitoring. The site’s remedy includes monitored natural attenuation of groundwater, and institutional controls to restrict groundwater and land use. The EPA regardinghas determined that no additional actions are needed for the ongoing actions atremedy to be protective over the site.long-term, and the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.


Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas


The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) notified Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas that the TCEQ believes those entities are potentially responsible parties (PRPs) concerning contamination existing at the San Angelo Electric Service Company (SESCO) facility in San Angelo, Texas.  The facility operated as a transformer repair and scrapping facility from the 1930s until 2003.  Both soil and groundwater contamination existsexisted at the site.  Entergy subsidiaries sent transformers to this facility.  Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy Texas responded to an information request from the TCEQ and continue to cooperate in this investigation.TCEQ.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas joined a group of PRPs responding to site conditions in cooperation with the State of Texas, creating cost allocation models based on review of SESCO documents and employee interviews, and investigating contribution actions against other PRPs.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas have agreed to contribute to the remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at the site in a measure proportionate to those companies’ involvement at the site, while Entergy Arkansas likely will pay a de minimis amount.site.  Current estimates, although variable depending on ultimate remediation design and performance, indicate that Entergy’s total share of remediation costs likely will be approximately $1.5 million to $2 million.  Remediation activities continueGroundwater monitoring wells at the site.site were plugged and abandoned in December 2019 following receipt of a certificate of completion issued by the TCEQ. Site decommissioning activities are complete and final disposition of the property will be determined at a later time.


Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Texas

The EPA notified Entergy that the EPA believes Entergy is a PRP concerning PCB contamination at the F.J. Doyle Salvage facility in Leonard, Texas. The facility operated as a scrap salvage business during the 1970s to the 1990s. In May 2018 the EPA investigated the site surface and sub-surface soils and, in November 2018 the EPA conducted a removal action, including disposal of PCB contaminated soils. Entergy responded to the EPA’s information requests in May and July 2019. In November 2020 the EPA sent Entergy and other PRPs a demand
281

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

letter seeking reimbursement for response costs totaling $4 million expended at the site. The demand letter is being evaluated and liability and PRP allocation of response costs are yet to be determined.

Entergy Texas


In December 2016 a transformer inside the Hartburg, Texas Substation had an internal fault resulting in a release of approximately 15,000 gallons of non-PCB mineral oil. Cleanup ensued immediately; however, rain caused much of the oil to spread across the substation yard and into a nearby wetland. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)TCEQ and the National Response Center were immediately notified, and the TCEQ responded to the site approximately two hours after the cleanup was initiated. The remediation liability is estimated at $2.2 million; however, this number could fluctuate depending on the remediation extent and wetland mitigation requirements. In July 2017,

272

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Entergy entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program with the TCEQ. Additional direction is expected from TCEQ regarding final remediation requirements forIn November 2017, additional soil sampling was completed in the site.

Entergy

In May 2015wetland area and, in February 2018, a transformer at the Indian Point facility failed, resulting in a fire and the releasesite summary report of non-PCB oilfindings was submitted to the ground surface.TCEQ. The fire was extinguished byTCEQ responded in June 2018 and requested an ecological exclusion criteria checklist/Tier II screening-level ecological risk assessment, and additional site assessment, additional soil samples, groundwater samples, and some additional diagrams and maps. In October 2018, Entergy submitted the facility’s fire deluge system. No injuries occurred duerequested information to the transformer failure or company response. An estimated 3,000 gallons of oil were released intoTCEQ. In January 2019 the facility’s discharge canalTCEQ responded with another request for information. In March 2019, Entergy submitted the requested information to the TCEQ. In August 2019 the TCEQ responded with a request for additional information including an Affected Property Assessment Report (APAR) and water well survey. The TCEQ has agreed that the environment surrounding the transformer and discharge canal, including the Hudson River, as a resultnecessity of the failure, fire,water well survey is dependent on the results of the groundwater resampling that will occur. Groundwater sampling was completed in December 2019 and fire suppression. Once the fire was extinguished, Indian Point personnel and contractors began recovering free-product from the damaged transformer, the transformer containment moat, and the area surrounding the transformer. The United States Coast Guard designated Entergy as the responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and assessed a $1,000 civil penalty for the discharge of oil into navigable waters. As required, Entergy established a claims process including a voluntary hotline. Entergy received no reportsresults were submitted to the voluntary hotline or claims underTCEQ for review. Based on the established claims process. In September 2016, Indian Point personnel identifiedgroundwater sampling results, the TCEQ confirmed in February 2020 that a water well survey is not necessary and requested the APAR and an oil sheen inEcological Risk Assessment by August 2020. Due to COVID-19 delays, the discharge canal. Further investigation revealed that an estimated 600 gallons of lubricating oil had leaked fromTCEQ extended the Indian Point 3 turbine system. The leaking component has been taken out of serviceAPAR and no oil has been discovered in the Hudson River. In October 2016 the New York Department of Environmental Conservation issued two notices of violation, one for each of these events, and a proposed order on consent for the 2015 event. In January 2017,Ecological Risk Assessment submittal dates to December 2020, which Entergy and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation resolved this matter with an order on consent. Pursuant to the order, Entergy paid approximately $600 thousand in civil penalties, natural resource damages, and oversight costs. Additionally, Entergy repaired a section of the discharge canal wall and will conduct daily visual inspections of the discharge canal wall to help identify additional material erosion or material structural deficiencies. Entergy has completed all compliance obligations under the consent order and the Department of Environmental Conservation closed the matter in December 2017.timely met.


Litigation


Entergy uses legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against it, but certain states in which Entergy operates have proven to be unusually litigious environments.  Judges and juries in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases.  The litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk to Entergy.


Ratepayer and Fuel Cost Recovery Lawsuits  (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Mississippi Attorney General Complaint

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of this proceeding.
Asbestos Litigation(Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)


See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of this litigation.


Employment and Labor-related Proceedings (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of these proceedings.


273
282

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Human Capital

Employees


Employees are an integral part of Entergy’s commitment to serving customers.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, Entergy subsidiaries employed 13,50413,400 people.


Utility:
Entergy Arkansas1,2781,244 
Entergy Louisiana1,7131,654 
Entergy Mississippi737750 
Entergy New Orleans274303 
Entergy Texas616658 
System Energy
Entergy Operations3,3613,529 
Entergy Services3,2643,859 
Entergy Nuclear Operations2,2111,356 
Other subsidiaries5047 
Total Entergy13,50413,400 


Approximately 4,6003,900 employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Utility Workers Union of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Government Security Officers of America, and the International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America.


Below is the breakdown of Entergy’s employees by gender and race/ethnicity:

Gender (%)20202019
Female2120
Male7980
100100


Race/Ethnicity (%)20202019
White7879
Black/African American1515
Hispanic/Latino32
Asian22
Other22
100100

Entergy’s Approach to Human Resources

Entergy’s people and culture enable its success; that is why acquiring, retaining, and developing talent are important components of Entergy’s human resources strategy. Entergy focuses on an approach that includes, among other things, governance and oversight; safety; organizational health, including diversity, inclusion and belonging; and talent management.

283

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Governance and Oversight

Ensuring that workplace processes support the desired culture and strategy begins with the Board of Directors and the Office of the Chief Executive. The Personnel Committee establishes priorities and reviews performance on a range of topics. It oversees Entergy’s incentive plan design and administers its executive compensation plans to incentivize the behaviors and outcomes that support achievement of Entergy’s corporate objectives. Annually, it reviews executive performance, development and succession plans to align a high performing executive team with Entergy’s priorities. The Personnel Committee also oversees Entergy’s performance through regular briefings on a wide variety of human resources topics including Entergy’s safety culture and performance; organizational health; and diversity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives and performance.

Other committees of the Board oversee other key aspects of Entergy’s culture. For example, the Audit Committee reviews reports on ethics and compliance training and performance, as well as regular reports on calls made to Entergy’s ethics line and related investigations. To maximize the sharing of information and facilitate the participation of all Board members in these discussions, the Board schedules its regular committee meetings in a manner such that all directors can attend.

The Office of the Chief Executive, which includes the Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, ensures annual business plans are designed to support Entergy’s talent objectives, reviews workforce-related metrics, and regularly discusses the development, succession planning, and performance of their direct reports and other company officers.

Safety

Entergy’s safety objective is: Everyone Safe. All Day. Every Day. While the COVID-19 pandemic and historical hurricane season presented significant challenges, Entergy’s safety strategy and commitment to excellence showed results in 2020. Entergy employees achieved a total recordable incident rate of 0.40 in 2020 compared to 0.56 in 2019 and 0.48 in 2018. The recordable incident rate equals the number of recordable incidents per 100 full-time equivalents. Recordable incidents include fatalities, lost-time accidents, restricted-duty accidents, and medical attentions and is not inclusive of potential work-related COVID-19 cases. This marked improvement in total recordable incident rate placed Entergy in top-decile in safety performance when benchmarked amongst peers within the Edison Electric Institute.

Organizational Health, including Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging

Entergy believes that organizational health fosters an engaged and productive culture that positions Entergy to deliver sustainable value to its stakeholders. Entergy measures its progress through an organizational health survey coordinated by an external third party. Since initially administering the survey in 2014, Entergy improved from an initial score of 49 (fourth quartile) to a score in 2020 of 72 (near top quartile). In addition to significantly improved scores, initial employee participation of 66 percent in 2014 rose to and remains at 90 percent in 2018-2020.

Entergy believes that a culture focused on diversity, inclusion, and belonging drives foundational engagement. Entergy is committed to developing and retaining a workforce that reflects the rich diversity of the communities it serves. In 2019, Entergy embarked on a three-year phased approach to enhance inclusion for individuals and teams. Among other actions, the primary focus of its 2020 actions was taking a stand against social injustice, reinforcing expectations, training and leading by example, starting at the top of the organization and cascading through management ranks.

284

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Talent Management

Entergy’s focus on talent management is organized in three areas: developing and attracting a diverse pool of talent, equipping its leaders to develop the organization, and building premier utility capability through employee performance management and succession programs. Entergy believes that developing a diverse pool of local talent equipped with the skills needed, today and in the future, and reflecting the communities Entergy serves will give it a long-term competitive advantage. The focus of Entergy’s leadership development programs is to equip managers with the skills needed to effectively develop their teams and improve the leader-employee relationship. Entergy’s talent development infrastructure, which includes a combination of business function-specific and enterprise-wide learning and development programs, is designed to ensure Entergy has qualified staff with the skills, experiences, and behaviors needed to perform today and prepare for the future. Entergy strives to achieve its strategic priorities by aligning and enhancing team and individual performance with business objectives, effectively deploying talent through succession planning, and managing workforce transitions.

Availability of SEC filings and other information on Entergy’s website


Entergy electronically files reports with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxies, and amendments to such reports. The public may read and copy any materials that Entergy files with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549.  The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.  The SEC also maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of the reports that Entergy files with the SEC can be obtained at the SEC’s website.


Entergy uses its website, http://www.entergy.com, as a routine channel for distribution of important information, including news releases, analyst presentations and financial information.  Filings made with the SEC are posted and available without charge on Entergy’s website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.  These filings include annual and quarterly reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q (including related filings in Inline XBRL format) and current reports on Form 8-K; proxy statements; and any amendments to those reports or statements.  All such postings and filings are available on Entergy’s Investor Relations website free of charge.  Entergy is providing the address to its internet site solely for the information of investors and does not intend the address to be an active link.  The contents of the website are not incorporated into this report.





274
285

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



RISK FACTORS


See “RISK FACTOR SUMMARY” in Part I Item 1 for a summary of Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ risk factors.

Investors should review carefully the following risk factors and the other information in this Form 10-K.  The risks that Entergy faces are not limited to those in this section.  There may be additional risks and uncertainties (either currently unknown or not currently believed to be material) that could adversely affect Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.  See “FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION.”


Utility Regulatory Risks


(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and responsive measures taken on Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ business, results of operations, and financial condition are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

In December 2019 a novel strain of coronavirus was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan, China. Since then, COVID-19 has spread throughout most countries in the world, including the United States. Public health officials in the United States have both recommended and mandated wearing of masks, precautions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including prohibitions on congregating in heavily-populated areas, mandated closure or limitations on the functions of non-essential business, and shelter-in-place orders or similar measures, including throughout Entergy’s service areas. While some of these mitigation measures have been lifted, it is unclear how long certain forms of mitigation measures will remain in place, whether they will be reinstated in the future, and how they will ultimately impact the general economy, Entergy’s customers, and its operations.

Entergy and its Utility operating companies have experienced a decline in commercial and industrial sales and an increase in arrearages and bad debt expense due to non-payment by customers, and expect such reduced levels of sales and increased arrearages and bad debt expense to continue, the extent and duration of which management cannot predict. The Utility operating companies temporarily suspended disconnecting customers for non-payment of bills, and the suspension remains in place at Entergy Arkansas, has been re-instituted at Entergy New Orleans, and could be re-instituted at the other Utility operating companies should their regulators mandate. While they are working with regulators to ensure ultimate recovery for those and other COVID-19 related costs, the amount, method, and timing of such recovery is unknown. Entergy and its Registrant Subsidiaries also could experience, and in some cases have experienced, among other challenges, supply chain, vendor, and contractor disruptions; delays in completion of capital or other construction projects, maintenance, and other operations activities, including prolonged or delayed outages; delays in regulatory proceedings; workforce availability, health or safety issues; increased storm recovery costs; increased cybersecurity risks as a result of many employees telecommuting; increased late or uncollectible customer payments; volatility in the credit or capital markets (and any related increased cost of capital or any inability to access the capital markets or draw on available credit facilities); or other adverse impacts on their ability to execute on business strategies and initiatives.

A sustained or further economic decline could adversely impact Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity and cash flows, including through declining sales, reduced revenues, delays in receipts of customer payments, or increased bad debt expense. The Utility operating companies also may experience regulatory outcomes that require them to postpone planned investment and otherwise reduce costs due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their customers. In addition, if the COVID-19 pandemic continues to create disruptions or turmoil in the credit or financial markets, or adversely impacts Entergy’s credit metrics or ratings, such developments could adversely affect its ability to access capital on favorable terms and continue to meet its
286

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

liquidity needs, or cause a decrease in the value of its defined benefit pension trust funds, as well as its nuclear decommissioning trust funds, all of which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

Entergy cannot predict the extent or duration of the outbreak, the impact of new variants of COVID-19, the timing, availability, distribution or effectiveness of a vaccine, anti-viral or other treatments for COVID-19, governmental responsive measures, or the extent of the effects or ultimate impacts on the global, national or local economy, the capital markets, or its customers, suppliers, operations, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

The terms and conditions of service, including electric and gas rates, of the Utility operating companies and System Energy are determined through regulatory approval proceedings that can be lengthy and subject to appeal, that could resultpotentially resulting in delays in effecting rate changes, lengthy litigation and uncertainty as to ultimate results.

The Utility operating companies are regulated on a cost-of-service and rate of return basis and are subject to statutes and regulatory commission rules and procedures. The rates that the Utility operating companies and System Energy charge reflect their capital expenditures, operations and maintenance costs, allowed rates of return, financing costs, and related costs of service.  These rates significantly influence the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy and each of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.  These rates are determined in regulatory proceedings and are subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment, including adjustment upon the initiative of a regulator or affected stakeholders.


In addition, regulators may initiate proceedings to investigate the prudence of costs in the Utility operating companies’ and System Energy’s base rates and examine, among other things, the reasonableness or prudence of the companies’ operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures (including storm costs and costs associated with capital projects), allowed rates of return and rate base, proposed resource acquisitions, and previously incurred capital expenditures that the operating companies seek to place in rates.  The regulators may disallow costs subject to their jurisdiction found not to have been prudently incurred or found not to have been incurred in compliance with applicable tariffs, creating some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs.  Regulatory proceedings relating to rates and other matters typically involve multiple parties seeking to limit or reduce rates.  Traditional base rate proceedings, as opposed to formula rate plans, generally have long timelines, are primarily based on historical costs, and may or may not be limited in scope or duration by statute. The length of these base rate proceedings can cause the Utility operating companies and System Energy to experience regulatory lag in recovering costs through rates.rates, such that the Utility operating companies may not fully recover all costs during the rate effective period and the Utility operating companies may, therefore, earn less than their allowed returns.  Decisions are typically subject to appeal, potentially leading to additional uncertainty associated with rate case proceedings.


The Utility operating companies have large customer and stakeholder bases and, as a result, could be the subject of public criticism or adverse publicity focused on issues including the operation of their assets and infrastructure or the quality of their service. Criticism or adverse publicity of this nature could render legislatures and other governing bodies, public service commissions and other regulatory authorities, and government officials less likely to view the applicable operating company in a favorable light and could potentially negatively affect legislative or regulatory processes or outcomes, as well as lead to increased regulatory oversight or more stringent legislative or regulatory requirements.

The base rates of Entergy Texas are established largely in traditional base rate case proceedings. Apart fromBetween base rate proceedings, Entergy Texas has also filed to useavailable rate riders to recover the revenue requirements associated with certain authorized historicalincremental costs. For example, Entergy Texas has recovered distribution-related capital investments through theThese riders include a distribution cost recovery factor rider mechanism transmission-relatedfor the recovery of distribution-related capital investmentsinvestment and certain non-fuel MISO charges, through thea transmission cost recovery factor rider mechanism for the recovery of transmission-related capital investments, a generation cost recovery rider mechanism for the recovery of generation-related capital investments, and a fixed fuel factor mechanism for the recovery of MISO fuel and energy-related costs through the fixed fuel factor mechanism. costs.Entergy Texas also is also required to make a filing every three years,
287

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

at a minimum, reconciling its fuel and purchased power costs and fuel factor revenues.In the course of this reconciliation, the PUCT determines whether eligible fuel and fuel-related expenses and revenues are necessary and reasonable, and makes a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts for the reconciliation period.Entergy Texas also is required to file full base rate case proceedings every four years and within eighteen months of utilizing its generation cost recovery rider for investments above $200 million.


Between base rate cases, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi are able to adjust base rates annually through formula rate plans that utilize a forward test year (Entergy Arkansas) or forward-looking features (Entergy Mississippi).In response to Entergy Arkansas’s application for a general change in rates in 2015, the APSC approved the formula rate plan tariff proposed by Entergy Arkansas including its use of a projected year test period and an initial five-year term.The initial five-year term expires in 2021 unless2021. Entergy Arkansas requests, and thehas requested APSC approves,approval of the extension of the formula rate plan tariff for an additional five years through 2026. In the event thatIf Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan iswere terminated or is not extended beyond the initial term, Entergy Arkansas could file an

275

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


application for a general change in rates that may include a request for continued regulation under a formula rate review mechanism.If Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan is terminated, it would revert to the more traditional rate case environment or seek approval of a new formula rate plan.Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi recover fuel and purchased energy and certain non-fuel costs through other APSC-approved and MPSC-approved tariffs, respectively.


Entergy Louisiana historically sets electric base rates annually through a formula rate plan using an historic test year.The form of the formula rate plan, on a combined basis, was approved in connection with the business combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and largely followed the formula rate plans that were approved by the LPSC in connection with the full electric base rate cases filed by those companies in February 2013.The formula rate plan was approved for continued usemost recently extended through the test year 2016 filing2019; certain modifications were made in that extension, including a decrease to the allowed return on equity and included a cap in cost of service increases at a cumulative total of $30 million through the formula rate plan cycle, which cap was not reached. The LPSC also approved in the business combination Entergy Louisiana’s continuationaddition of a mechanism to recover non-fuel MISO-related costs, which are calculated separately from the formula rate plan requirements, but embedded in the formula rate plan factor applied on customer bills. Thistransmission cost recovery mechanism expired following the 2015 test year, but was renewed for the 2016 test year. MISO fuel and energy-related costs are recoverable in Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause. mechanism.The formula rate plan includescontinues to include exceptions from the rate cap and sharing requirements for certain large capital investment projects, including acquisition or construction of generating facilities as well asand purchase power agreements approved by the LPSC and as noted, for certain transmission investment, among other items. In August 2017, MISO fuel and energy-related costs are recoverable in Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause.Entergy Louisiana filedhas a pending request to extend theits formula rate plan for an additional three years and to reset rates to the authorized mid-point return on equity of 9.95%. The filing also seekswith certain modifications, to the formula rate plan, including a narrower, 80 basis points earnings sharing bandwidth and implementation of a rider to recover certain transmission-related investments, when those investments begin delivering benefits to customers. distribution investment recovery mechanism and use of end of period rate base.In the event that the electric formula rate plan is not renewed or extended, Entergy Louisiana would revert to the more traditional rate case environment.


Entergy New Orleans previously operated under a formula rate plan that ended with the 2011 test year. Currently, basedBased on a settlement agreement approved by the City Council, with limited exceptions, no action may be taken with respect tothe base rates of Entergy New Orleans’s base ratesOrleans were frozen until rates arewere implemented from ain connection with the base rate case that must be filed for its electric and gas operationsby Entergy New Orleans in 2018.In November 2019 the City Council issued a resolution resolving the rate case, with rates to become effective retroactive to August 2019.The limited exceptions include implementationresolution allows Entergy New Orleans to implement a three-year formula rate plan, beginning with the 2019 test year as adjusted for forward-looking known and measurable changes.In November 2020 the City Council issued a resolution approving a settlement of the final year2018 rate case.As part of a four-year phased-in rate increase for its Algiers operations in the Fifteenth Ward of the City ofthis settlement, Entergy New Orleans agreed to postpone the filing of its first test year formula rate plan to 2021 and, certain exceptional cost increases or decreases in its base revenue requirement.return, to be provided an additional test year for the three-year cycle.See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion.


The rates of System Energy are established by the FERC, and the costs allowed to be charged pursuant to these rates are, in turn, passed through to the participating Utility operating companies through the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which allowshas monthly adjustments tobillings that reflect the current operating costs of, and investment in, Grand Gulf. Retail regulators and other parties may seek to initiate proceedings at FERC to investigate the prudence of costs included in the rates charged under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and examine, among other things, the

288

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

reasonableness or prudence of the operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures, allowed rates of return and rate base, and previously incurred capital expenditures. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is currently the subject of several litigation proceedings at the FERC, including a challenge with respect to System Energy’s uncertain tax positions, sale leaseback arrangement, authorized return on equity and capital structure, and a separate request for FERC to initiate a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Entergy cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings nor can it predict whether any outcome could have a material effect on Entergy’s or System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the proceedings. System Energy has received FERC acceptance for billing protocols to provide retail regulators with information regarding rates billed under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

The Utility operating companies and System Energy, and the energy industry as a whole, have experienced a period of rising costs and investments, and an upward trend in spending, especially with respect to infrastructure investments, which is likely to continue in the foreseeable future and could result in more frequent rate cases and requests for, and the continuation of, cost recovery mechanisms.  For information regarding rate case proceedings and formula rate plans applicable to the Utility operating companies, see Note 2 to the financial statements.


Changes to state or federal legislation or regulation affecting electric generation, electric and natural gas transmission, distribution, and related activities could adversely affect Entergy and the Utility operating companies’ financial position, results of operations, or cash flows and their utility businesses.

If legislative and regulatory structures evolve in a manner that erodes the Utility operating companies’ exclusive rights to serve their regulated customers, they could lose customers and sales and their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially affected. Additionally, technological advances in energy efficiency and distributed energy resources are reducing the costs of these technologies and together with ongoing state and federal subsidies, the increasing penetration of these technologies could result in reduced sales by the Utility operating companies. Such loss of sales could put upward pressure on rates, resulting in adverse regulatory actions to mitigate such effects on rates. Entergy and the Utility operating companies cannot predict if or when they may be subject to changes in legislation or regulation, or the extent and timing of reductions of the cost of distributed energy resources, nor can they predict the impact of these changes on their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The Utility operating companies recover fuel, purchased power, and associated costs through rate mechanisms that are subject to risks of delay or disallowance in regulatory proceedings.


The Utility operating companies recover their fuel, purchased power, and associated costs from their customers through rate mechanisms subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment.  Because regulatory review can result in the disallowance of incurred costs found not to have been prudently incurred, including the cost of replacement power purchased when generators experience outages or when planned outages are extended, with the possibility of refunds to ratepayers, there exists some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs, particularly when there are substantial or sudden increases in such costs.  Regulators also may also initiate proceedings to investigate the continued usage or the adequacy and operation of the fuel and purchased power recovery clauses of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, there can be no assurance that existing recovery mechanisms will remain unchanged or in effect at all.


276

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



The Utility operating companies’ cash flows can be negatively affected by the time delays between when gas, power, or other commodities are purchased and the ultimate recovery from customers of the costs in rates.  On occasion, when the level of incurred costs for fuel and purchased power rises very dramatically, some of the Utility operating companies may agree to defer recovery of a portion of that period’s fuel and purchased power costs for recovery at a later date, which could increase the near-term working capital and borrowing requirements of those companies.  For a description of fuel and purchased power recovery mechanisms and information regarding the regulatory proceedings for fuel and purchased power costs recovery, see Note 2 to the financial statements.
289

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


There remains uncertainty regarding the effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies.


The Utility operating companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating resources and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that had been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement terminated in its entirety on August 31, 2016.


There remains uncertainty regarding the long-term effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies because of the significant effect of the agreement on the generation and transmission functions of the Utility operating companies and the significant period of time (over 30 years) that it had been in existence. In the absence of the System Agreement, there remains uncertainty around the effectiveness of governance processes and the potential absence of federal authority to resolve certain issues among the Utility operating companies and their retail regulators.


In addition, although the System Agreement terminated in its entirety in August 2016, there are a number offew outstanding System Agreement proceedings at the FERC and at the D.C. Circuit that may require future adjustments, including challenges to the level and timing of payments made by Entergy Arkansas under the System Agreement. The outcome and timing of these FERC proceedings and resulting recovery and impact on rates cannot be predicted at this time.


For further information regarding the regulatory proceedings relating to the System Agreement, see Note 2 to the financial statements.


The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO RTO tariff and their participation in the MISO RTO’s wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.


On December 19, 2013, the Utility operating companies integrated into the MISO RTO. MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a bilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets. MISO tariff rules and system conditions, including transmission congestion, could affect the Utility operating companies’ ability to sell powercapacity, energy, and/or ancillary services in certain regions and/or the economic value of such sales, or the cost of serving the Utility operating companies’ respective loads, and MISO market rules may change in ways that cause additional risk.


The Utility operating companies participate in the MISO regional transmission planning process and are subject to risks associated with planning decisions that MISO makes in the exercise of control over the planning of the Utility operating companies’ transmission assets that are under MISO’s functional control. The Utility operating companies pay transmission rates that reflect the cost of transmission projects that the Utility operating companies do not own, which could increase cash or financing needs. MISO is currently evaluating through its stakeholder process potential changes in the transmission project criteria in MISO. These changes, if adopted, could potentially result in a larger

277

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


volume of competitively bid and regionally cost allocated transmission projects. In addition to the cash and financing-related risks arising from the potential additional cost allocation to the Utility operating companies from thesetransmission projects of others, there is a risk that the Utility operating companies’ business and financial position could be harmed as a result of lost investment opportunities and other effects that flow from an increased number of competitive projects being approved and constructed that are interconnected with their transmission systems. Further, the terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets, the
290

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and the System Energy

allocation of transmission upgrade costs, the MISO-wide allowed base rate of return on equity, and any required MISO-related charges and credits are subject to regulation by the FERC. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO tariff and their participation in the MISO wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements. In addition, orders from each of the Utility operating companies’ respective retail regulators generally require that the Utility operating companies make periodic filings, or generally allow the retail regulator to direct the making of such filings, setting forth the results of analysis of the costs and benefits realized from MISO membership as well as the projected costs and benefits of continued membership in MISO and/or requesting approval of their continued membership in MISO. These filings have been submitted periodically by each of the Utility operating companies as required by their respective retail regulators, and the outcome of the resulting proceedings may affect the Utility operating companies’ continued membership in MISO.


(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)


A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred as a result of severe weather (including from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta), or the impact on customer bills of permitted storm cost recovery, could have material effects on Entergy and thoseits Utility operating companies affected by severe weather.companies.


Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition can be materially affected by the destructive effects of severe weather.  Severe weather can also result in significant outages for the customers of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, reduced revenues for the Utility operating companies during the period of the outages.  A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred or revenues lost as a result of severe weather could have a material effect on Entergy and those Utility operating companies affected by severe weather. In addition, the recovery of major storm restoration costs from customers could effectively limit our ability to make planned capital or other investments due to the impact of such storm cost recovery on customer bills.


In August and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, including New Orleans, Texas, and to a lesser extent, in Arkansas and Mississippi. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of the electrical system damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $2.4 billion. Because Entergy has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

Nuclear Operating, Shutdown, and Regulatory Risks


(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy)


Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities must consistently operate their nuclear power plants at high capacity factors in order to be successful, and lower capacity factors could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.


Nuclear capacity factors significantly affect the results of operations of certain Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  Nuclear plant operations involve substantial fixed operating
291

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

costs.  Consequently, to be successful, a plant owner must consistently operate its nuclear power plants at high capacity factors, consistent with safety requirements. For the Utility operating companies that own nuclear plants, lower capacity factors can increase production costs by requiring the affected companies to generate additional energy, sometimes at higher costs, from their fossilowned or contractually controlled facilities or purchase additional energy in the spot or forward markets in order to satisfy their supply needs.  For the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants, lower capacity factors directly affect revenues and cash flow from operations.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward sales are comprised of various hedge products, many of which have some degree of operational-contingent price risk. Certain unit-contingent contracts guarantee specified minimum capacity factors. In the event plants with these contracts were operating below the guaranteed capacity factors, Entergy would be subject to price risk for the undelivered power.  Further, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear forward sales contracts can also be on a firm LD basis, which subjects Entergy to increasing price risk as capacity factors decrease. Many of these firm hedge products have damages risk, capped through the use of risk management products.risk.

278

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners periodically shut down their nuclear power plants to replenish fuel.  Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such refueling outages.  If refueling outages last longer than anticipated or if unplanned outages arise, Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected.


Outages at nuclear power plants to replenish fuel require the plant to be “turned off.”  Refueling outages generally are planned to occur once every 18 to 24 months and average approximately 30 days in duration.months.  Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such planned outages.outages, which typically extends the planned outage duration.  When refueling outages last longer than anticipated or a plant experiences unplanned outages, capacity factors decrease, and maintenance costs may increase.  Lower than forecasted capacity factors may cause Entergy Wholesale Commodities to experience reduced revenues and may also create damages risk with certain hedge products as previously discussed.


Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy and Entergy Wholesale Commodities face risks related to the purchase of uranium fuel (and its conversion, enrichment, and fabrication). These risks could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.


Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, Entergy’s nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable prices through most of 2018.  The nuclear fuel supply portfolio for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment is being adjusted to reflect reduced overall requirements related to the planned permanent shutdown of the Palisades, Pilgrim, Indian Point 22020 and Indian Point 3 plants over the next two to five years.beyond. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners. While there are a number of possible alternate suppliers that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, the pricing of any such alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time. Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S. Market prices for nuclear fuel have been extremely volatile from time to time in the past.past and may be subject to increased volatility due to the imposition of tariffs, domestic purchase requirements or limitations on importation of uranium or uranium products from foreign countries, or shifting trade arrangements between countries.  Although Entergy’s nuclear fuel contract portfolio provides a degree of hedging against market risks for several years, costs for nuclear fuel in the future cannot be predicted with certainty due to normal inherent market uncertainties, and price changes could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.Energy.


Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance and reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. These service providers are fewer in number than uranium suppliers. For conversion and enrichment services, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures to ensure a reliable supply of enriched uranium for fabrication into nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel; therefore, Entergy relies upon additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight of the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality of its nuclear fuel. Certain of the suppliers and service providers are located in or dependent upon countries, such as Russia, in which deteriorating economic conditions or international sanctions or tariffs could further restrict the ability of such
292

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

suppliers to continue to supply fuel or provide such services.services at acceptable prices or at all.  The inability of such suppliers or service providers to perform such obligations could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.Energy.


Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business face the risk that the NRC will change or modify its regulations, suspend not renew, or revoke their licenses, or increase oversight of their nuclear plants, which could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.


Under the Atomic Energy Act and Energy Reorganization Act, the NRC regulates the operation of nuclear power plants.  The NRC may modify, suspend, not renew, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility and impose civil penalties for failure to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, related regulations, or the terms of the licenses for

279

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


nuclear facilities. The license renewal process in some cases may be the subject of significant public debate and legislative review and scrutiny at the federal and, in some cases, state level, though the decision whether to renew is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the NRC. Interested parties may also intervene which could result in prolonged proceedings. A change in the Atomic Energy Act, other applicable statutes, or the applicable regulations or licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, may require a substantial increase in capital expenditures or may result in increased operating or decommissioning costs and could materially affect the results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition of Entergy (through Entergy Wholesale Commodities), its Utility operating companies, or System Energy.  A change in the classification of a plant owned by one of these companies under the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process, which is the NRC’s program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response, also could cause the owner of the plant to incur material additional costs as a result of the increased oversight activity and potential response costs associated with the change in classification.For additional information concerning the current classification of the plants owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see “Regulation of Entergy’s Business- Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry - NRC Reactor Oversight Process” in Part I, Item 1 and Note 8 to the financial statements.1.


Events at nuclear plants owned by one of these companies, as well as those owned by others, may lead to a change in laws or regulations or the terms of the applicable licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, or may cause the NRC to increase oversight activity or initiate actions to modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility, or impose civil penalties.  As a result, if an incident were to occur at any nuclear generating unit, whether an Entergy nuclear generating unit or not, it could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities.


Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities are exposed to risks and costs related to operating and maintaining their nuclear power plants, and their failure to maintain operational efficiency at their nuclear power plants could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.


The nuclear generating units owned by certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy,and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business began commercial operations in the 1970s-1980s.  Older equipment may require more capital expenditures to keep each of these nuclear power plants operating safely and efficiently.  This equipment is also likely to require periodic upgrading and improvement.  Any unexpected failure, including failure associated with breakdowns, forced outages, or any unanticipated capital expenditures, could result in increased costs, some of which costs may not be fully recoverable by the Utility operating companies and System Energy in regulatory proceedings.proceedings should there be a determination of imprudence.  Operations at any of the nuclear generating units owned and operated by Entergy’s subsidiaries could degrade to the point where the affected unit needs to be shut down or operated at less than full capacity.  If this were to happen, identifying and correcting the causes may require significant time and expense.  A decision may be made to close a unit rather than incur the expense of restarting it or returning the unit to full capacity.  For the Utility operating companies and System Energy, this could result in certain costs being stranded and potentially not fully recoverable in regulatory proceedings. For Entergy Wholesale Commodities, this could result in lost revenue and increased fuel and purchased power expense to meet
293

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

supply commitments and penalties for failure to perform under their contracts with customers. In addition, the operation and maintenance of Entergy’s nuclear facilities require the commitment of substantial human resources that can result in increased costs.


The nuclear industry continues to address susceptibility to the effects of stress corrosion cracking and other corrosion mechanisms on certain materials within plant systems.  The issue is applicable at all nuclear units to varying degrees and is managed in accordance with industry standard practices and guidelines that include in-service examinations, replacements, and mitigation strategies.  Developments in the industry or identification of issues at the nuclear units could require unanticipated remediation efforts that cannot be quantified in advance.


Moreover, Entergy is becoming more dependent on fewer suppliers for key parts of Entergy’s nuclear power plants that may need to be replaced or refurbished.refurbished, and in some cases, parts are no longer available and have to be reverse-engineered for replacement.  In addition, certain major parts have long lead-times to manufacture

280

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


if an unplanned replacement is needed. This dependence on a reduced number of suppliers and long lead-times on certain major parts for unplanned replacements could result in delays in obtaining qualified replacement parts and, therefore, greater expense for Entergy.


The costs associated with the storage of the spent nuclear fuel of certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, as well as the costs of and their ability to fully decommission their nuclear power plants, could be significantly affected by the timing of the opening of a spent nuclear fuel disposal facility, as well as interim storage and transportation requirements.


Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants incur costs for the on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel.  The approval of a license for a national repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, such as the one proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, or any interim storage facility, and the timing of such facility opening, will significantly affect the costs associated with on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel.  For example, while the DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing of Yucca Mountain and, after the license is granted by the NRC, to construct the repository and commence the receipt of spent fuel, the NRC licensing of the Yucca Mountain repository is effectively at a standstill. These actions are prolonging the time before spent fuel is removed from Entergy’s plant sites.  Because the DOE has not accomplished its objectives, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts, and Entergy has sued the DOE for such breach.  Furthermore, Entergy is uncertain as to when the DOE will commence acceptance of spent fuel from its facilities for storage or disposal.  As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at the companies’ nuclear sites and maintenance costs on existing storage facilities, including aging management of fuel storage casks, may increase.  The costs of on-site storage are also affected by regulatory requirements for such storage.  In addition, the availability of a repository or other off-site storage facility for spent nuclear fuel may affect the ability to fully decommission the nuclear units and the costs relating to decommissioning.  For further information regarding spent fuel storage, see the “Critical Accounting EstimatesNuclear Decommissioning CostsSpent Fuel Disposal” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy and Note 8 to the financial statements.


Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to pay substantial retrospective premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act in the event of a nuclear incident, and losses not covered by insurance could have a material effect on Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.


Accidents and other unforeseen problems at nuclear power plants have occurred both in the United States and elsewhere.  The Price-Anderson Act limits each reactor owner’s public liability (off-site) for a single nuclear incident to the payment of retrospective premiums into a secondary insurance pool, ofwhich is referred to as Secondary Financial Protection, up to approximately $127.3$137.6 million per reactor.  With 10297 reactors currently
294

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

participating, this translates to a total public liability cap of approximately $13$14 billion per incident.  The limit is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation, a change in the primary limit of insurance coverage, and changes in the number of licensed reactors.  As required by the Price-Anderson Act, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities carry the maximum available amount of primary nuclear off-site liability insurance with American Nuclear Insurers, (whichwhich is $450 million for each operating site as of January 1, 2018).site.  Claims for any nuclear incident exceeding that amount are covered under the retrospective premiums paid into the secondary insurance pool.Secondary Financial Protection.  As a result, in the event of a nuclear incident that causes damages (off-site) in excess of the primary insurance coverage, each owner of a nuclear plant reactor, including Entergy’s Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners, regardless of fault or proximity to the incident, will be required to pay a retrospective premium, equal to its proportionate share of the loss in excess of the primary insurance level, up to a maximum of approximately $127.3$137.6 million per reactor per incident (Entergy’s maximum total contingent obligation per incident is $1.146$1.101 billion).  The retrospective premium payment is currently limited to approximately $19$21 million per year per incident per reactor until the aggregate public liability for each licensee is paid up to the $127.3$137.6 million cap.



281

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


NEIL is a utility industry mutual insurance company, owned by its members, including the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants. All member plants could be subject to an annual assessment (retrospective premium of up to 10 times current annual premium for all policies) should the NEIL surplus (reserve) be significantly depleted due toinsured losses.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, the maximum annual assessment amounts total $112.2$104 million for the Utility plants.  Retrospective premium insurance available through NEIL’s reinsurance treaty can cover the potential assessments and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants currently maintain the retrospective premium insurance to cover those potential assessments.


As an owner of nuclear power plants, Entergy participates in industry self-insurance programs and could be liable to fund claims should a plant owned by a different company experience a major event.  Any resulting liability from a nuclear accident may exceed the applicable primary insurance coverage and require contribution of additional funds through the industry-wide program that could significantly affect the results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries.


The decommissioning trust fund assets for the nuclear power plants owned by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may not be adequate to meet decommissioning obligations if market performance and other changes decrease the value of assets in the decommissioning trusts, if one or more of Entergy’s nuclear power plants is retired earlier than the anticipated shutdown date, if the plants cost more to decommission than estimated, or if current regulatory requirements change, which then could require significant additional funding.

Owners of nuclear generating plants have an obligation to decommission those plants.  Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants maintain decommissioning trust funds for this purpose.  Certain of the Utility operating companies collect funds from their customers, which are deposited into the trusts covering the units operated for or on behalf of those companies.  Those rate collections, as adjusted from time to time by rate regulators, are generally based upon operating license lives and trust fund balances as well as estimated trust fund earnings and decommissioning costs.  Assets in these trust funds are subject to market fluctuations, will yield uncertain returns that may fall below projected return rates, and may result in losses resulting from the recognition of impairments of the value of certain securities held in these trust funds.


In connection with the acquisition of certain nuclear plants, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners acquired decommissioning trust funds that are funded in accordance with NRC regulations.  Under NRC regulations, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear subsidiariesplant owners are permitted to project the NRC-required decommissioning amount, based on an NRC formula or a site-specific estimate, and the amount that will be available in each of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plant’s decommissioning trusts combined with any other decommissioning financial assurances in place.  The projections are made based on the operating license expiration date and the mid-point of the subsequent
295

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

decommissioning process, or the anticipated actual completion of decommissioning if a site-specific estimate is used, for each of these nuclear power plants.  As a result, ifused. If the projected amount of each individual plants’plant’s decommissioning trusts exceeds the NRC-required decommissioning amount, then its NRC license termination decommissioning obligations are considered to be funded in accordance with NRC regulations.  If the projected costs do not sufficiently reflect the actual costs the applicable Entergy subsidiaries would be required to incur to decommission these nuclear power plants, or funding is otherwise inadequate, or if the formula, formula inputs, or site-specific estimate is changed to require increased funding, additional resources or commitments would be required.  Furthermore, depending upon the level of funding available in the trust funds, the NRC may not permit the trust funds to be used to pay for related costs such as the management of spent nuclear fuel that are not included in the NRC’s formula.  The NRC may also require a plan for the provision of separate funding for spent fuel management costs.  In addition to NRC requirements, there are other decommissioning-related obligations for certain of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, which management believes it will be able to satisfy.


Further, federal or state regulatory changes, including mandated increases in decommissioning funding or changes in the methods or standards for decommissioning operations, may also increase the funding requirements of,

282

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


or accelerate the timing for funding of, the obligations related to the decommissioning of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants or may restrict the decommissioning-related costs that can be paid from the decommissioning trusts.  Such changes also could result in the need for additional contributions to decommissioning trusts, or the posting of parent guarantees, letters of credit, or other surety mechanisms. As a result, under any of these circumstances, Entergy’s results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition could be materially affected.


An early plant shutdown (either generally or relative to current expectations), poor investment results, or higher than anticipated decommissioning costs (including as a result of changing regulatory requirements) could cause trust fund assets to be insufficient to meet the decommissioning obligations, with the result that the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to provide significant additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning, which, with respect to the Utility operating companies, may not be recoverable from customers in a timely fashion or at all.


For further information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs, management’s decision to exit the merchant power business, and the impairment charges that resulted from such decision, and the planned sales of Palisades and Indian Point Energy Center (which, in each case, will include the transfer of the associated decommissioning trusts), see the “Critical Accounting Estimates- Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, and Notes 9 and 14 to the financial statements.

Changes in NRC regulations or other binding regulatory requirements may cause increased funding requirements for nuclear plant decommissioning trusts.

NRC regulations require certain minimum financial assurance requirements for meeting obligations to decommission nuclear power plants.  Those financial assurance requirements may change from time to time, and certain changes may result in a material increase in the financial assurance required for decommissioning the Utility operating companies’, System Energy’s, and owners of Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.  Such changes could result in the need for additional contributions to decommissioning trusts, or the posting of parent guarantees, letters of credit, or other surety mechanisms.  For further information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates– Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy and Note 9 to the financial statements.


New or existing safety concerns regarding operating nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel could lead to restrictions upon the operation and decommissioning of Entergy’s nuclear power plants.


New and existing concerns are being expressed in public forums about the safety of nuclear generating units and nuclear fuel, in particular in the northeastern United States, which is where most of the current fleet of Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants is located.fuel. These concerns have led to, and are expected tomay continue to lead to, various proposals to Federal regulators and governing bodies in some localities where Entergy’s subsidiaries own nuclear generating units for legislative and regulatory changes that couldmight lead to the shutdown of nuclear units, denial of license renewal applications, additional requirements or restrictions related to spent nuclear fuel on-site storage and eventual disposal, or other adverse effects on owning, operating, and decommissioning nuclear generating units.  Entergy vigorously responds to these concerns and proposals.  If any of the existing proposals, or any proposals that may arise in the future with respect to legislative and regulatory changes, become effective, they could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations and financial condition, and liquidity.condition.

(Entergy Corporation)

A failure to obtain renewed licenses or other approvals required for the continued operation of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Indian Point nuclear power plants could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity and could lead to an acceleration of the timing for the funding of decommissioning obligations.


283
296

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



(Entergy Corporation)
The license renewal and related processes for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Indian Point nuclear power plants have been and may continue to be the subject of significant public debate and regulatory and legislative review and scrutiny at the federal and, in certain cases, state level.  The original expiration date of the operating license for Indian Point 2 was September 2013 and the original expiration date of the operating license for Indian Point 3 was December 2015.  Because these plants filed timely license renewal applications, the NRC’s rules provide that these plants may continue to operate under their existing operating licenses until their renewal applications have been finally determined.

In January 2017, Entergy announced that it plans to shut down Indian Point 2 in 2020 and Indian Point 3 in 2021. The early and orderly shutdown is part of a settlement under which New York State has agreed to drop legal challenges and support renewal of the operating licenses for Indian Point. For additional discussion of the settlement agreement with New York State, see the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Authorizations to Operate Indian Point” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis.

If the NRC were to deny the applications for the renewal of operating licenses for the Indian Point nuclear power plants, or if Indian Point fails to obtain other approvals, Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected by loss of revenue and cash flow associated with the plant or plants until the proposed shutdown date, potential impairments of the carrying value of the plants, increased depreciation rates, and an accelerated need for decommissioning funds, which could require additional funding. In addition, Entergy may incur increased operating costs depending on any conditions that may be imposed in connection with license renewal.  For further discussion regarding the license renewal processes for the Indian Point nuclear power plants, see the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Authorizations to Operate Indian Point” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis.


Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are exposed to price risk.


Entergy and its subsidiaries do not have a regulator-authorized rate of return on their capital investments in non-utility businesses.  As a result, the sale of capacity and energy from the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, unless otherwise contracted, is subject to the fluctuation of market power prices. In order to reduce future price risk to desired levels, Entergy Wholesale Commodities utilizes contracts that are unit-contingent and Firm LD and various products such as forward sales, options, and collars.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power generation plants had sold forward 98% in 2018, 91% in 2019, 51% in 2020, 74% in 2021 and 67%99% in 2022 of its generation portfolio’s planned energy output, reflecting the planned shutdown orand sale of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants by mid-2022.


Market conditions such as product cost, market liquidity, and other portfolio considerations influence the product and contractual mix.  The obligations under unit-contingent agreements depend on a generating asset that is operating; if the generation asset is not operating, the seller generally is not liable for damages.  For some unit-contingent obligations, however, there is also a guarantee of availability that provides for the payment to the power purchaser of contract damages, if incurred, in the event the unit owner fails to deliver power as a result of the failure of the specified generation unit to generate power at or above a specified availability threshold.  Firm LD sales transactions may be exposed to substantial operational price risk, a portion of which may be capped through the use of risk management products, to the extent that the plants do not run as expected and market prices exceed contract prices.


Market prices may fluctuate substantially, sometimes over relatively short periods of time, and at other times experience sustained increases or decreases.  Demand for electricity and its fuel stock can fluctuate dramatically, creating periods of substantial under- or over-supply.  During periods of over-supply, prices might be depressed.  Also, from time to time there may be political pressure, or pressure from regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over wholesale and retail energy commodity and transportation rates, to impose price limitations, credit requirements, bidding rules, and other mechanisms to address volatility and other issues in these markets.


284

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



The effects of sustained low natural gas prices and power market structure challenges have resulted in lower market prices for electricity in the power regions where the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are located. In addition, currently the market design under which the plants operate does not adequately compensate merchant nuclear plants for their environmental and fuel diversity benefits in the region. These conditions were primary factors leading to Entergy’s decision to shut down (or sell) Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power plants before the end of their operating licenses (or requested operating licenses for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3).licenses.


The price that different counterparties offer for various products including forward sales is influenced both by market conditions as well as the contract terms such as damage provisions, credit support requirements, and the number of available counterparties interested in contracting for the desired forward period.  Depending on differences between market factors at the time of contracting versus current conditions, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contract portfolio may have average contract prices above or below current market prices, including at the expiration of the contracts, which may significantly affect Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.  New hedges are generally layered into on a rolling forward basis, which tends to drive hedge over-performance to market in a falling price environment, and hedge underperformance to market in a rising price environment; however, hedge timing, product choice, and hedging costs will also affect these results. See the “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries.  Since Entergy Wholesale Commodities has announced the closure (or sale) of its nuclear plants, Entergy Wholesale Commodities may enter into fewer forward sales contracts for output from such plants.

Among the factors that could affect market prices for electricity and fuel, all of which are beyond Entergy’s control to a significant degree, are:

prevailing market prices for natural gas, uranium (and its conversion, enrichment, and fabrication), coal, oil, and other fuels used in electric generation plants, including associated transportation costs, and supplies of such commodities;
seasonality and realized weather deviations compared to normalized weather forecasts;
availability of competitively priced alternative energy sources and the requirements of a renewable portfolio standard;
changes in production and storage levels of natural gas, lignite, coal and crude oil, and refined products;
liquidity in the general wholesale electricity market, including the number of creditworthy counterparties available and interested in entering into forward sales agreements for Entergy’s full hedging term;
the actions of external parties, such as the FERC and local independent system operators and other state or Federal energy regulatory bodies, that may impose price limitations and other mechanisms to address some of the volatility in the energy markets;
electricity transmission, competing generation or fuel transportation constraints, inoperability, or inefficiencies;
the general demand for electricity, which may be significantly affected by national and regional economic conditions;
weather conditions affecting demand for electricity or availability of hydroelectric power or fuel supplies;
the rate of growth in demand for electricity as a result of population changes, regional economic conditions, and the implementation of conservation programs or distributed generation;
regulatory policies of state agencies that affect the willingness of Entergy Wholesale Commodities customers to enter into long-term contracts generally, and contracts for energy in particular;
increases in supplies due to actions of current Entergy Wholesale Commodities competitors or new market entrants, including the development of new generation facilities, expansion of existing generation facilities, the disaggregation of vertically integrated utilities, and improvements in transmission that allow additional supply to reach Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear markets;
union and labor relations;
changes in Federal and state energy and environmental laws and regulations and other initiatives, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, including but not limited to, the price impacts of proposed emission controls;


285
297

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



changes in law resulting from federal or state energy legislation or legislation subjecting energy derivatives used in hedging and risk management transactions to governmental regulation; and
natural disasters, terrorist actions, wars, embargoes, and other catastrophic events.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to substantial governmental regulation and may be adversely affected by legislative, regulatory, or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.


The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to extensive regulation under federal, state, and local laws. Compliance with the requirements under these various regulatory regimes may cause the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to incur significant additional costs, and failure to comply with such requirements could result in the shutdown of the non-complying facility, the imposition of liens, fines, and/or civil or criminal liability.


Public utilities under the Federal Power Act are required to obtain FERC acceptance of their rate schedules for wholesale sales of electricity.  Each of the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants that generates electricity, as well as Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC, is a “public utility” under the Federal Power Act by virtue of making wholesale sales of electric energy and/or owning wholesale electric transmission facilities.  The FERC has granted these generating and power marketing companies the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates.  The FERC’s orders that grant the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating and power marketing companies market-based rate authority reserve the right to revoke or revise that authority if the FERC subsequently determines that the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business can exercise market power in transmission or generation, create barriers to entry, or engage in abusive affiliate transactions.  In addition, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ market-based sales are subject to certain market behavior rules, and if any of its generating and power marketing companies were deemed to have violated one of those rules, they would be subject to potential disgorgement of profits associated with the violation and/or suspension or revocation of their market-based rate authority and potential penalties of up to $1$1.29 million per day per violation.  If the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating or power marketing companies were to lose their market-based rate authority, such companies would be required to obtain the FERC’s acceptance of a cost-of-service rate schedule and could become subject to the accounting, record-keeping, and reporting requirements that are imposed on utilities with cost-based rate schedules.  This could have an adverse effect on the rates the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business charges for power from its facilities.


The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is also affected by legislative and regulatory changes, as well as changes to market design, market rules, tariffs, cost allocations, and bidding rules imposed by the existing Independent System Operators.  The Independent System Operators that oversee most of the wholesale power markets may impose, and in the future may continue to impose, mitigation, including price limitations, offer caps and other mechanisms, to address some of the volatility and the potential exercise of market power in these markets.  These types of price limitations and other regulatory mechanisms may have an adverse effect on the profitability of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business’ generation facilities that sell energy and capacity into the wholesale power markets. Further, the New York Independent System Operator could determine that the timing of the shutdown of the Indian Point units could be inconsistent with its market power rules, and impose certain penalties that could affect Entergy Wholesale Commodities. For further information regarding federal, state, and local laws and regulation applicable to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Regulation of Entergy’s Business” section in Part I, Item 1.


The regulatory environment applicable to the electric power industry is subject to changes as a result of restructuring initiatives at both the state and federal levels. Entergy cannot predict the future design of the wholesale power markets or the ultimate effect that the changing regulatory environment will have on the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.  In addition, in some of these markets, interested parties have proposed material market design changes, including the elimination of a single clearing price mechanism, have raised claims that the competitive marketplace is not working because energy prices in wholesale markets exceed the marginal cost of operating nuclear power plants, and have made proposals to re-regulate the markets, impose a generation tax, or require divestitures by generating companies to reduce their market share.  Other proposals to re-regulate may be made and legislative or other attention to the electric power market restructuring process may delay or reverse the deregulation process, which

286

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


could require material changes to business planning models.  If competitive restructuring of the electric power markets is reversed, modified, discontinued, or delayed, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected.

298

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


The power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to impairment charges in certain circumstances, which could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.


Entergy reviews long-lived assets held in all of its business segments whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that recoverability of these assets is uncertain.  Generally, the determination of recoverability is based on the undiscounted net cash flows expected to result from the operations of such assets.  Projected net cash flows depend on the expected operating life of the assets, the future operating costs associated with the assets, the efficiency and availability of the assets and generating units, and the future market and price for energy and capacity over the remaining life of the assets.  In particular, the remaining assets of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to further impairment in connection with the closure orand sale of the plants discussed below.its nuclear power plants. Moreover, prior to the closure orand sale of these plants, the failure of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to achieve forecasted operating results and cash flows, an unfavorable change in forecasted operating results or cash flows, a reduction in the expected remaining useful life of a unit, (including if the operating licenses for the Indian Point power plants are not renewed by the NRC), or a decline in observable industry market multiples could all result in potential additional impairment charges for the affected assets.


On August 27, 2013, Entergy announced its plan to close and decommission Vermont Yankee.  Vermont Yankee ceased power production in the fourth quarter 2014 at the end of a fuel cycle.  This decision was approved by the Board in August 2013, and resulted in the recognition of impairment charges in 2013 and 2014. In October 2015, Entergy determined that it will close the Pilgrim and FitzPatrick plants. The Pilgrim plant will cease operations no later than June 1, 2019. FitzPatrick was expected to shut down at the end of its current fuel cycle, planned for January 27, 2017, but in March 2017, Entergy sold the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon Generation Company, LLC which continues to operate the plant. During the third quarter 2015, Entergy recorded impairment and other related charges to write down the carrying values of the FitzPatrick and Pilgrim plants and related assets to their fair values. In addition, in the fourth quarter 2015, Entergy recorded impairment and other related charges to write down the carrying value of the Palisades plant and related assets to their fair value. In December 2016, Entergy reached an agreement with Consumers Energy to terminate the PPA for the Palisades plant and to shut down the plant in 2018, but the agreement was terminated in September 2017 after the Michigan Public Service Commission decided that Consumers Power could not recover costs incurred under the agreement. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades plant permanently on May 31, 2022. In January 2017, Entergy announced that it reached a settlement with New York State and plans to close the Indian Point 2 plant in 2020 and the Indian Point 3 plant in 2021. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2016, Entergy recorded impairment and other related charges to write down the carrying values of the Palisades and Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair value. In addition to the impairments and other related charges, Entergy has incurred severance and employee retention costs and expects to incur additional charges through 2022 relating to the decisions to shut down Vermont Yankee, Palisades, Pilgrim, Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3, and the sale of FitzPatrick.

If Entergy concludes that any of its nuclear power plants is unlikely to operate through its planned shutdown date, which conclusion would be based on a variety of factors, such a conclusion could result in a further impairment of part or all of the carrying value of the plant.  Any impairment charge taken by Entergy with respect to its long-lived assets, including the remaining power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, would likely be material in the quarter that the charge is taken and could otherwise have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. For further information regarding evaluating long-lived assets for impairment, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates - Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries and for further discussion of the impairment charges, see Note 14 to the financial statements.


287

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


General BusinessProduction Cost Allocation Rider


(Entergy Arkansas has in place an APSC-approved production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of System Agreement proceedings.

Entergy Louisiana

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Louisiana’s rate schedules include a fuel adjustment clause designed to recover the cost of fuel and purchased power costs.  The fuel adjustment clause contains a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense and related carrying charges arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings related to audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Louisiana received approval from the LPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Louisiana historically hedged approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year.  The hedge quantity was reviewed on an annual basis. In January 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC to suspend these seasonal hedging programs and implement financial hedges with terms up to five years for a portion of its natural gas exposure, which was approved in November 2018.

Entergy Louisiana’s gas rates include a purchased gas adjustment clause based on estimated gas costs for the billing month adjusted by a surcharge or credit that arises from an annual reconciliation of fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Retail Rates - Gas

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the
245

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of the upper end of the earnings band as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s filings to recover storm-related costs.

Other

In March 2016 the LPSC opened two dockets to examine, on a generic basis, issues that it identified in connection with its review of Cleco Corporation’s acquisition by third party investors.  The first docket is captioned “In re: Investigation of double leveraging issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities,” and the second is captioned “In re: Investigation of tax structure issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities.”  In April 2016 the LPSC clarified that the concerns giving rise to the two dockets arose as a result of its review of the structure of the Cleco-Macquarie transaction and that the specific intent of the directives is to seek more information regarding intra-corporate debt financing of a utility’s capital structure as well as the use of investment tax credits to mitigate the tax obligation at the parent level of a consolidated entity.  No schedule has been set for either docket, and limited discovery has occurred.

In December 2019 an LPSC commissioner issued an unopposed directive to staff to research customer-centered options for all customer classes, as well as other regulatory environments, and recommend a plan for how to ensure customers are the focus. There was no opposition to the directive from other commissioners but several remarked that the intent of the directive was not initiated to pursue retail open access. In furtherance of the directive, the LPSC issued a notice of the opening of a docket to conduct a rulemaking to research and evaluate customer-centered options for all electric customer classes as well as other regulatory environments in January 2020.

Entergy Mississippi

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include energy cost recovery riders to recover fuel and purchased power costs.  The energy cost rate for each calendar year is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery of the energy costs as of the 12-month period ended September 30.  Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to annual audits conducted pursuant to the authority of the MPSC.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Mississippi received approval from the MPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Mississippi hedges approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year.  The hedge quantity is reviewed on an annual basis.

246

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings regarding recovery of Entergy Mississippi’s storm-related costs.

Formula Rate Plan

In August 2012 the MPSC opened inquiries to review whether the current formulaic methodology used to calculate the return on common equity in both Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan and Mississippi Power Company’s annual formula rate plan was still appropriate or could be improved to better serve the public interest. The intent of this inquiry and review was for informational purposes only; the evaluation of any recommendations for changes to the existing methodology would take place in a general rate case or in the existing formula rate plan proceeding. In March 2013 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed its consultant’s report which noted the return on common equity estimation methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company are commonly used throughout the electric utility industry. The report suggested ways in which the methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company might be improved, but did not recommend specific changes in the return on common equity formulas or calculations at that time. In June 2014 the MPSC expanded the scope of the August 2012 inquiry to study the merits of adopting a uniform formula rate plan that could be applied, where possible in whole or in part, to both Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company in order to achieve greater consistency in the plans. The MPSC directed the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff to investigate and review Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan rider schedule and Mississippi Power Company’s Performance Evaluation Plan by considering the merits and deficiencies and possibilities for improvement of each and then to propose a uniform formula rate plan that, where possible, could be applicable to both companies. No procedural schedule has been set. In October 2014 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff conducted a public technical conference to discuss performance benchmarking and its potential application to the electric utilities’ formula rate plans. The docket remains open.

Entergy New Orleans

Fuel Recovery

Entergy New Orleans’s electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment tariff designed to reflect no more than targeted fuel and purchased power costs, adjusted by a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel and purchased power costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges.

To help stabilize gas costs, Entergy New Orleans seeks approval annually from the City Council to continue implementation of its natural gas hedging program consistent with the City Council’s stated policy objectives.  The program uses financial instruments to hedge exposure to volatility in the wholesale price of natural gas purchased to serve Entergy New Orleans gas customers.  Entergy New Orleans hedges up to 25% of actual gas sales made during the winter months.

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s efforts to recover storm-related costs.

247

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Energy Efficiency Programs

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  The rate settlement provided an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provided a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In January 2015 the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart program from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted and when new rates from the 2018 combined rate case, which includes a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect. In December 2017 the City Council approved an energy efficiency cost recovery rider as an interim funding mechanism for Energy Smart, subject to verification that no additional funding sources exist. In June 2018 the City Council also approved a resolution recommending that Entergy New Orleans allocate approximately $13.5 million of benefits resulting from the Tax Act to Energy Smart. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2020 through December 2022.

Entergy Texas

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including interest, that are not included in base rates.  Semi-annual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in fuel mix.  The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT.  The PUCT fuel cost proceedings are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements.

At the PUCT’s April 2013 open meeting, the PUCT Commissioners discussed their view that a purchased power capacity rider was good public policy. The PUCT issued an order in May 2013 adopting the rule allowing for a purchased power capacity rider, subject to an offsetting adjustment for load growth. The rule, as adopted, also includes a process for obtaining pre-approval by the PUCT of purchased power agreements. Entergy Texas has not exercised the option to recover its capacity costs under the new rider mechanism, but will continue to evaluate the benefits of utilizing the new rider to recover future capacity costs.

Electric Industry Restructuring

In June 2009, a law was enacted in Texas that required Entergy Texas to cease all activities relating to Entergy Texas’s transition to competition.  The law allows Entergy Texas to remain a part of the SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC) Region, although it does not prevent Entergy Texas from joining another power region.  The law provides that proceedings to certify a power region that Entergy Texas belongs to as a qualified power region can be initiated by the PUCT, or on motion by another party, when the conditions supporting such a proceeding
248

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

exist.  Under the law, the PUCT may not approve a transition to competition plan for Entergy Texas until the expiration of four years from the PUCT’s certification of Entergy Texas’s power region.

The law also contains provisions that allow Entergy Texas to take advantage of a cost recovery mechanism that permits annual filings for the recovery of reasonable and necessary expenditures for transmission infrastructure improvement and changes in wholesale transmission charges.  This mechanism was previously available to other non-ERCOT Texas utility companies, but not to Entergy Texas.

The law further amended already existing law that had required Entergy Texas to propose for PUCT approval a tariff to allow eligible customers the ability to contract for competitive generation.  The amending language in the law provides, among other things, that:  1) the tariff shall not be implemented in a manner that harms the sustainability or competitiveness of manufacturers who choose not to participate in the tariff; 2) Entergy Texas shall “purchase competitive generation service, selected by the customer, and provide the generation at retail to the customer;” and 3) Entergy Texas shall provide and price transmission service and ancillary services under that tariff at a rate that is unbundled from its cost of service.  The law directs that the PUCT may not issue an order on the tariff that is contrary to an applicable decision, rule, or policy statement of a federal regulatory agency having jurisdiction.

The PUCT determined that unrecovered costs that may be recovered through the rider consist only of those costs necessary to implement and administer the competitive generation program and do not include lost revenues or embedded generation costs.  The amount of customer load that may be included in the competitive generation service program is limited to 115 MW.

In September 2011 the PUCT adopted a proposed rule implementing a distribution cost recovery factor to recover capital and capital-related costs related to distribution infrastructure.  The distribution cost recovery factor permits utilities once per year to implement an increase or decrease in rates above or below amounts reflected in base rates to reflect depreciation expense, federal income tax and other taxes, and return on investment.  The distribution cost recovery factor rider may be changed a maximum of four times between base rate cases.

In September 2019 the PUCT initiated a rulemaking to promulgate a generation cost recovery factor rule, implementing legislation passed in the 2019 Texas legislative session intended to allow electric utilities to recover generation investments between base rate proceedings.  The PUCT approved the final rule in July 2020.

Franchises

Entergy Arkansas holds exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 308 incorporated cities and towns in Arkansas.  These franchises are unlimited in duration and continue unless the municipalities purchase the utility property.  In Arkansas franchises are considered to be contracts and, therefore, are terminable pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement and applicable statutes.

Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 175 incorporated municipalities and in the unincorporated areas of approximately 59 parishes of Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide natural gas service to customers in the City of Baton Rouge and in East Baton Rouge Parish.  Municipal franchise agreement terms range from 25 to 60 years while parish franchise terms range from 25 to 99 years.

Entergy Mississippi has received from the MPSC certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide electric service to areas within 45 counties, including a number of municipalities, in western Mississippi.  Under Mississippi statutory law, such certificates are exclusive.  Entergy Mississippi may continue to serve in such municipalities upon payment of a statutory franchise fee, regardless of whether an original municipal franchise is still in existence.

249

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans provides electric and gas service in the City of New Orleans pursuant to indeterminate permits set forth in city ordinances.  These ordinances contain a continuing option for the City of New Orleans to purchase Entergy New Orleans’s electric and gas utility properties.

Entergy Texas holds a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PUCT to provide electric service to areas within approximately 27 counties in eastern Texas, and holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 68 incorporated municipalities.  Entergy Texas typically obtains 25-year franchise agreements as existing agreements expire.  Entergy Texas’s electric franchises expire over the period 2020-2058.

The business of System Energy is limited to wholesale power sales.  It has no distribution franchises.

Property and Other Generation Resources

Owned Generating Stations

The total capability of the generating stations owned and leased by the Utility operating companies and System Energy as of December 31, 2020, is indicated below:
 Owned and Leased Capability MW(a)
CompanyTotalGas/OilNuclearCoalHydroSolar
Entergy Arkansas5,175 2,091 1,817 1,194 73 — 
Entergy Louisiana11,317 8,827 2,144 346 — — 
Entergy Mississippi3,347 2,929 — 416 — 
Entergy New Orleans665 638 — — — 27 
Entergy Texas2,260 2,005 — 255 — — 
System Energy1,256 — 1,256 — — — 
Total24,020 16,490 5,217 2,211 73 29 

(a)“Owned and Leased Capability” is the dependable load carrying capability as demonstrated under actual operating conditions based on the primary fuel (assuming no curtailments) that each station was designed to utilize.

Summer peak load for the Utility has averaged 21,591 MW over the previous decade.

The Utility operating companies’ load and capacity projections are reviewed periodically to assess the need and timing for additional generating capacity and interconnections. These reviews consider existing and projected demand, the availability and price of power, the location of new load, the economy, Entergy’s clean energy and other public policy goals, environmental regulations, and the age and condition of Entergy’s existing infrastructure.

The Utility operating companies’ long-term resource strategy (Portfolio Transformation Strategy) calls for the bulk of capacity needs to be met through long-term resources, whether owned or contracted. Over the past decade, the Portfolio Transformation Strategy has resulted in the addition of about 8,801 MW of new long-term resources and the deactivation of about 4,664 MW of legacy generation. As MISO market participants, the Utility operating companies also participate in MISO’s Day Ahead and Real Time Energy and Ancillary Services markets to economically dispatch generation and purchase energy to serve customers reliably and at the lowest reasonable cost.

250

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Generation Resources

RFP Procurements

The Utility operating companies from time to time issue requests for proposals (RFP) to procure supply-side resources from sources other than the spot market to meet the unique regional needs of the Utility operating companies. The RFPs issued by the Utility operating companies have sought resources needed to meet near-term MISO reliability requirements as well as long-term requirements through a broad range of wholesale power products, including limited-term (1 to 3 years) and long-term contractual products and asset acquisitions. The RFP process has resulted in selections or acquisitions, including, among other things:

Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 980 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (previously referred to as the St. Charles generating facility) at its existing Little Gypsy electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in May 2019;
Entergy Texas’s construction of the 993 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Montgomery County Power Station at its existing Lewis Creek electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in January 2021;
Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 994 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Lake Charles generating facility at its existing Nelson electric generating station site. The facility began commercial operation in March 2020;
In October 2018, Entergy Mississippi signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Sunflower County, Mississippi. Entergy Mississippi received regulatory approval from the MPSC in April 2020, and the facility is scheduled to be in service by early 2022;
In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 800 acres in White County near Searcy, Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas received regulatory approval from the APSC in April 2020 and the facility is scheduled to be in service by the end of 2021;
Entergy New Orleans received regulatory approval in August 2019 to construct the New Orleans Solar Station (a 20 MW self-build solar project) located at the NASA Michoud Facility.The facility was placed in service in December 2020;
In June 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Lee County, Arkansas. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2022;
In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 180 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,500 acres in Crittenden County, Arkansas. In January 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023; and
In June 2020, Entergy Texas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,200 acres in Liberty County near Dayton, Texas.In September 2020, Entergy Texas filed a petition with the PUCT seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals.Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023.

251

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The RFP process has also resulted in the selection, or confirmation of the economic merits of, long-term purchased power agreements (PPAs), including, among others:

River Bend’s 30% life-of-unit PPA between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans for 100 MW related to Entergy Louisiana’s unregulated portion of the River Bend nuclear station, which portion was formerly owned by Cajun;
Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale base load capacity life-of-unit PPAs executed in 2003 totaling approximately 220 MW between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana (110 MW) and between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy New Orleans (110 MW) related to the sale of a portion of Entergy Arkansas’s coal and nuclear base load resources (which had not been included in Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates);
In May 2011, Entergy Texas and Calpine Energy Services, L.P. executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana purchases 50% of the facility’s capacity and energy from Entergy Texas. In July 2014, LS Power purchased the Carville Energy Center and replaced Calpine Energy Services as the counterparty to the agreement;
In September 2012, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 28 MW, with the potential to purchase an additional 9 MW when available, from Rain CII Carbon LLC’s petroleum coke calcining facility in Sulphur, Louisiana. The facility began commercial operation in May 2013. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with the facility;
In March 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 8.5 MW from Agrilectric Power Partners, LP’s refurbished rice hull-fueled electric generation facility located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with Agrilectric;
In September 2013, Entergy Louisiana executed a 10-year agreement with TX LFG Energy, LP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Montauk Energy Holdings, LLC, to purchase approximately 3 MW from its landfill gas-fueled power generation facility located in Cleveland, Texas;
Entergy Mississippi’s cost-based purchase, beginning in January 2013, of 90 MW from Entergy Arkansas’s share of Grand Gulf (only 60 MW of this PPA came through the RFP process). Cost recovery for the 90 MW was approved by the MPSC in January 2013;
In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas and Stuttgart Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 81 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generation facility located near Stuttgart, Arkansas. The APSC approved the project and deliveries pursuant to that agreement commenced in June 2018;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and LS Power executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and will begin in June 2022;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and Occidental Chemical Corporation executed a 10-year agreement for 500 MW from the Taft Cogeneration facility located in Hahnville, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and began in June 2018;
In June 2017, Entergy Arkansas and Chicot Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 100 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Chicot County, Arkansas. The transaction received regulatory approval and the PPA began in November 2020;
In February 2018, Entergy Louisiana and LA3 West Baton Rouge, LLC (Capital Region Solar project) executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in February 2019 and the PPA began in October 2020;
In July 2018, Entergy New Orleans and St. James Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 20 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021;
In August 2018, Entergy Louisiana and South Alexander Development I, LLC executed a five-year agreement for 5 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The PPA began in December 2020 and received regulatory approval in January 2021;
252

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

In February 2019, Entergy New Orleans and Iris Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Washington Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021; and
In August 2020, Entergy Texas and Umbriel Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 150 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Polk County, Texas.The PPA is expected to start when the facility reaches commercial operation in 2023.

In April 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Texas, issued an RFP for combined-cycle gas turbine capacity and energy resources. The RFP was seeking up to 1,000 MW - 1,200 MW of capacity, capacity-related benefits, energy, other electric products, and environmental attributes, if any, from a single generation resource located in the “Eastern Region” of Entergy Texas’s service area. In December 2020, Entergy Texas posted notice that it has elected to proceed with the self-build alternative, Orange County Power Station. The self-build alternative will be conditioned on receipt of required internal and regulatory approvals.

In June 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Louisiana, issued an RFP for solar photovoltaic resources. The RFP was seeking 300 MW of energy, capacity, capacity-related benefits, other electric products, and environmental attributes from eligible new-build solar photovoltaic generation resources. In December 2020, Entergy Louisiana concluded evaluations of the RFP. Three proposals have been placed on the primary selection list and two proposals have been placed on the secondary selection list. Negotiations are currently in progress.

In January 2021, Entergy Texas provided notice that it intends to issue an RFP for solar generation resources. The RFP is seeking a minimum of 200 MW through a combination of build-own-transfer agreements, self-build alternatives, and power purchase agreements that can provide cost-effective energy supply, fuel diversity, and other benefits to Entergy Texas customers.

Other Procurements From Third Parties

The Utility operating companies have also made resource acquisitions outside of the RFP process, including Entergy Mississippi’s January 2006 acquisition of the 480 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Attala power plant; Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s March 2008 acquisition of the 322 MW, simple-cycle, gas-fired Calcasieu Generating Facility; Entergy Louisiana’s April 2011 acquisition of the 580 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Acadia Energy Center Unit 2; Entergy Arkansas’s (Power Block 2), Entergy Louisiana’s (Power Blocks 3 and 4), and Entergy New Orleans’s (Power Block 1) March 2016 acquisitions of the 1,980 MW (summer rating), natural gas-fired, combined-cycle gas turbine Union Power Station power blocks, each rated at 495 MW (summer rating); and Entergy Mississippi’s October 2019 acquisition of the 810 MW, combined-cycle, natural gas-fired Choctaw Generating Station. The Utility operating companies have also entered into various limited- and long-term contracts in recent years as a result of bilateral negotiations.

The Washington Parish Energy Center is a 361 MW natural gas-fired peaking power plant approximately 60 miles north of New Orleans on a site Entergy Louisiana purchased from Calpine in 2019. In May 2018, Entergy Louisiana received LPSC approval of its certification application for this simple-cycle power plant to be developed pursuant to an agreement between Calpine and Entergy Louisiana. Calpine began construction on the plant in early 2019 and Entergy Louisiana purchased the plant upon completion in November 2020.

The Hardin County Peaking Facility is an existing 147 MW simple-cycle gas-fired peaking power plant in Kountze, Texas, owned by East Texas Electric Cooperative. Entergy Texas is currently seeking regulatory certification to move forward with the purchase of the facility. The facility has been in operation since January 2010.


253

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Power Through Program

In December 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to amend its certificate of convenience and necessity to own and operate up to 75 MW of natural gas-fired distributed generation that is to be installed at commercial and industrial customer premises. If approved, Entergy Texas would own and operate a fleet of generators ranging from 100 kW to 10 MW that would supply a portion of Entergy Texas’s long-term resource needs and enhance the resiliency of Entergy Texas’s electric grid. This fleet of generators would also be available to customers during outages to supply backup electric service as part of a program known as “Power Through.”

Interconnections

The Utility operating companies’ generating units are interconnected to a transmission system operating at various voltages up to 500 kV.  These generating units consist of steam-electric production facilities, combustion-turbine generators, pressurized and boiling water nuclear reactors, and inverter-based technologies operating in the MISO energy and ancillary services market. Entergy’s Utility operating companies are MISO market participants and are interconnected with many neighboring utilities.  MISO is an essential link in the safe, cost-effective delivery of electric power across all or parts of 15 U.S. states and the Canadian province of Manitoba. As a Regional Transmission Organization, MISO assures consumers of unbiased regional grid management and open access to the transmission facilities under MISO’s functional supervision. In addition, the Utility operating companies are members of SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). SERC is a nonprofit corporation responsible for promoting and improving the reliability, adequacy, and critical infrastructure of the bulk power supply systems in all or portions of 16 central and southeastern states.SERC serves as a regional entity with delegated authority from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) for the purpose of proposing and enforcing Bulk Electric System reliability standards within the SERC Region.

Gas Property

As of December 31, 2020, Entergy New Orleans distributed and transported natural gas for distribution within New Orleans, Louisiana, through approximately 2,600 miles of gas pipeline.  As of December 31, 2020, the gas properties of Entergy Louisiana, which are located in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, were not material to Entergy Louisiana’s financial position.

Title

The Utility operating companies’ generating stations are generally located on properties owned in fee simple.  Most of the substations and transmission and distribution lines are constructed on private property or public rights-of-way pursuant to easements, servitudes, or appropriate franchises.  Some substation properties are owned in fee simple.  The Utility operating companies generally have the right of eminent domain, whereby they may perfect title to, or secure easements or servitudes on, private property for their utility operations.

Substantially all of the physical properties and assets owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy are subject to the liens of mortgages securing bonds issued by those companies.  The Lewis Creek generating station of Entergy Texas was acquired by merger with a subsidiary of Entergy Texas and is currently not subject to the lien of the Entergy Texas indenture.


254

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Fuel Supply

The sources of generation and average fuel cost per kWh for the Utility operating companies and System Energy for the years 2018-2020 were:
 Natural GasNuclearCoalPurchased PowerMISO Purchases
Year% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh
202047 1.92 29 0.57 2.54 4.36 13 2.48 
201940 2.33 28 0.73 2.31 4.86 18 2.71 
201839 2.84 27 0.84 2.24 5.23 17 3.71 

Actual 2020 and projected 2021 sources of generation for the Utility operating companies and System Energy, including certain power purchases from affiliates under life of unit power purchase agreements, including the Unit Power Sales Agreement, are:
 Natural GasNuclearCoalPurchased Power (d)MISO Purchases (e)
 2020202120202021202020212020202120202021
Entergy Arkansas (a)24 %35 %60 %51 %10 %13 %%%%— 
Entergy Louisiana51 %59 %26 %27 %%%%12 %13 %— 
Entergy Mississippi (b)73 %69 %14 %22 %%%— — %— 
Entergy New Orleans (b)55 %56 %33 %40 %%%%%%— 
Entergy Texas39 %60 %11 %13 %%%23 %21 %25 %— 
System Energy (c)— — 100 %100 %— — — — — — 
Utility (a) (b)47 %55 %29 %31 %%%%%13 %— 

(a)Hydroelectric power provided less than 1% of Entergy Arkansas’s generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of its generation in 2021.
(b)Solar power provided less than 1% of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of each of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2021.
(c)Capacity and energy from System Energy’s interest in Grand Gulf is allocated as follows under the Unit Power Sales Agreement: Entergy Arkansas - 36%; Entergy Louisiana - 14%; Entergy Mississippi - 33%; and Entergy New Orleans - 17%.  Pursuant to purchased power agreements, Entergy Arkansas is selling a portion of its owned capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.
(d)Excludes MISO purchases.
(e)In December 2013, Entergy integrated its transmission system into the MISO RTO. Entergy offers all of its generation into the MISO energy market on a day-ahead and real-time basis and bids for power in the MISO energy market to serve the demand of its customers, with MISO making dispatch decisions. The MISO purchases metric provided for 2020 is not projected for 2021.

Some of the Utility’s gas-fired plants are also capable of using fuel oil, if necessary. Although based on current economics the Utility does not expect fuel oil use in 2021, it is possible that various operational events including weather or pipeline maintenance may require the use of fuel oil.

Natural Gas

The Utility operating companies have long-term firm and short-term interruptible gas contracts for both supply and transportation. Over 50% of the Utility operating companies’ power plants maintain some level of long-
255

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

term firm transportation. Short-term contracts and spot-market purchases satisfy additional gas requirements.  Entergy Texas owns a gas storage facility that provides reliable and flexible natural gas service to certain generating stations.

Many factors, including wellhead deliverability, storage, pipeline capacity, and demand requirements of end users, influence the availability and price of natural gas supplies for power plants.  Demand is primarily tied to weather conditions as well as to the prices and availability of other energy sources.  Pursuant to federal and state regulations, gas supplies to power plants may be interrupted during periods of shortage.  To the extent natural gas supplies are disrupted or natural gas prices significantly increase, the Utility operating companies may in some instances use alternate fuels, such as oil when available, or rely to a larger extent on coal, nuclear generation, and purchased power.

Coal

Entergy Arkansas has committed to seven one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 85% of the total coal supply needs in 2021.  These contracts are staggered in term so that not all contracts have to be renewed the same year.  The remaining 15% of total coal requirements will be satisfied by contracts with a term of less than one year.  Based on continued improved Powder River Basin (PRB) coal deliveries by rail and the high cost of alternate sources and modes of transportation, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Entergy Arkansas during 2021.  Coal will be transported to Arkansas via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Arkansas’s rail transportation requirements for 2021.

Entergy Louisiana has committed to five one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 90% of Nelson Unit 6 coal needs in 2021.  If needed, additional PRB coal will be purchased through contracts with a term of less than one year to provide the remaining supply needs.  For the same reasons as for Entergy Arkansas’s plants, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Nelson Unit 6 during 2021.  Coal will be transported to Nelson primarily via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Louisiana’s rail transportation requirements for 2021.

For the year 2020, coal transportation delivery rates to Entergy Arkansas-and Entergy Louisiana-operated coal-fired units were adequate to meet supply needs and obligations, and it is expected that delivery times in 2021 will continue to be consistent. Both Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana control a sufficient number of railcars to satisfy the rail transportation requirement.

The operator of Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3, Louisiana Generating, LLC, has advised Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas that it has adequate rail car and barge capacity to meet the volumes of PRB coal requested for 2021.  Entergy Louisiana’s and Entergy Texas’s coal nomination requests to Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3 are made on an annual basis.

Nuclear Fuel

The nuclear fuel cycle consists of the following:

mining and milling of uranium ore to produce a concentrate;
conversion of the concentrate to uranium hexafluoride gas;
enrichment of the uranium hexafluoride gas;
fabrication of nuclear fuel assemblies for use in fueling nuclear reactors; and
disposal of spent fuel.

The Registrant Subsidiaries that own nuclear plants, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, are responsible through a shared regulated uranium pool for contracts to acquire nuclear material to be used in fueling Entergy’s Utility nuclear units.  These companies own the materials and services in this shared regulated
256

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

uranium pool on a pro rata fractional basis determined by the nuclear generation capability of each company.  Any liabilities for obligations of the pooled contracts are on a several but not joint basis.  The shared regulated uranium pool maintains inventories of nuclear materials during the various stages of processing.  The Registrant Subsidiaries purchase enriched uranium hexafluoride for their nuclear plant reload requirements at the average inventory cost from the shared regulated uranium pool.  Entergy Operations, Inc. contracts separately for the fabrication of nuclear fuel as agent on behalf of each of the Registrant Subsidiaries that owns a nuclear plant.  All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and the owner of a nuclear power plant.

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, the Utility nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable or fixed prices through most of 2023. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners.  There are a number of possible supply alternatives that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, including potentially drawing upon Entergy’s inventory intended for later generation periods depending upon its risk management strategy at that time, although the pricing of any alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time.  In addition, some nuclear fuel contracts are on a non-fixed price basis subject to prevailing prices at the time of delivery.

The effects of market price changes may be reduced and deferred by risk management strategies, such as negotiation of floor and ceiling amounts for long-term contracts, buying for inventory or entering into forward physical contracts at fixed prices when Entergy believes it is appropriate and useful.  Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S.

Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. There are fewer of these providers than for uranium. For conversion and enrichment services, like uranium, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures as needed to ensure supply of enriched uranium for the reliable fabrication of nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the effective performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel, therefore, Entergy provides additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight for the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy each have made arrangements to lease nuclear fuel and related equipment and services.  The lessors, which are consolidated in the financial statements of Entergy and the applicable Registrant Subsidiary, finance the acquisition and ownership of nuclear fuel through credit agreements and the issuance of notes.  These credit facilities are subject to periodic renewal, and the notes are issued periodically, typically for terms between three and seven years.

Natural Gas Purchased for Resale

Entergy New Orleans has several suppliers of natural gas.  Its system is interconnected with one interstate and three intrastate pipelines.  Entergy New Orleans has a “no-notice” service gas purchase contract with CenterPoint Energy Services which guarantees Entergy New Orleans gas delivery at specific delivery points and at any volume within the minimum and maximum set forth in the contract amounts.  The CenterPoint Energy Service gas supply is transported to Entergy New Orleans pursuant to a transportation service agreement with Gulf South Pipeline Co.  This service is subject to FERC-approved rates.  Entergy New Orleans also makes interruptible spot market purchases.

Entergy Louisiana purchased natural gas for resale in 2020 under a firm contract from Sequent Energy Management L.P.  The gas is delivered through a combination of intrastate and interstate pipelines.

257

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

As a result of the implementation of FERC-mandated interstate pipeline restructuring in 1993, curtailments of interstate gas supply could occur if Entergy Louisiana’s or Entergy New Orleans’s suppliers failed to perform their obligations to deliver gas under their supply agreements.  Gulf South Pipeline Co. could curtail transportation capacity only in the event of pipeline system constraints.

Federal Regulation of the Utility

State or local regulatory authorities, as described above, regulate the retail rates of the Utility operating companies.  The FERC regulates wholesale sales of electricity rates and interstate transmission of electricity, including System Energy’s sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of federal regulation proceedings.

System Agreement (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)


Prior to each operating company’s termination of participation in the System Agreement (Entergy Arkansas in December 2013, Entergy Mississippi in November 2015, and Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each in August 2016), the Utility operating companies dependengaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which was a rate schedule approved by the FERC. Under the terms of the System Agreement, generating capacity and other power resources were jointly operated by the Utility operating companies that were participating in the System Agreement.  The System Agreement provided, among other things, that parties having generating reserves greater than their allocated share of reserves (long companies) would receive payments from those parties having generating reserves that were less than their allocated share of reserves (short companies).  Such payments were at amounts sufficient to cover certain of the long companies’ costs for intermediate and peaking oil/gas-fired generation, including operating expenses, fixed charges on accessdebt, dividend requirements on preferred equity, and a fair rate of return on common equity investment.  Under the System Agreement, the rates used to compensate long companies were based on costs associated with the capital markets and, at times, may face potential liquidity constraints, which could make it more difficult to handle future contingencies such as natural disasterslong companies’ steam electric generating units fueled by oil or substantial increases in gas and fuel prices.  Disruptions inhaving an annual average heat rate above 10,000 Btu/kWh.  In addition, for all energy exchanged among the capital and credit markets may adversely affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ abilityUtility operating companies under the System Agreement, the companies purchasing exchange energy were required to meet liquidity needs, access capital and operate and grow their businesses, andpay the cost of capital.fuel consumed in generating such energy plus a charge to cover other associated costs.


Entergy’s business is capital intensive and dependent upon its ability to access capital at reasonable rates and other terms.  At times there are also spikes inAlthough the price for natural gas and other commodities that increase the liquidity requirementsSystem Agreement has terminated, certain of the Utility operating companiescompanies’ and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  their retail regulators are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC and in federal courts. The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and other matters. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of legal proceedings at the FERC and in federal courts involving the System Agreement.

Transmission and MISO Markets

In addition, Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity needs could significantly increase in the event of a hurricane or other weather-related or unforeseen disaster similar to that experienced in Entergy’s service territory with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike in 2008, and Hurricane Isaac in 2012.  The occurrence of one or more contingencies, including a delay in regulatory recovery of fuel or purchased power costs or storm restoration costs, higher than expected pension contributions, an acceleration of payments or decreased credit lines, less cash flow from operations than expected, or other unknown events, could cause the financing needs of Entergy and its subsidiaries to increase.  In addition, accessing the debt capital markets more frequently in these situations may result in an increase in leverage.  Material leverage increases could negatively affect the credit ratings of Entergy andDecember 2013 the Utility operating companies which in turn could negativelyintegrated into the MISO RTO. Although becoming a member of MISO did not affect access to the capital markets.

The inability to raise capital on favorable terms, particularly during times of uncertainty in the capital markets, could negatively affect Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to maintain and to expand their businesses.  Events beyond Entergy’s control may create uncertainty that could increase its cost of capital or impair its ability to access the capital markets, including the ability to draw on its bank credit facilities.  Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the degree of success they will have in renewing or replacing their credit facilities as they come up for renewal.  Moreover, the size, terms, and covenants of any new credit facilities may not be comparable to, and may be more restrictive than, existing facilities.  If Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to access the credit and capital markets on terms that are reasonable, they may have to delay raising capital, issue shorter-term securities and/or bear an unfavorable cost of capital, which, in turn, could impact their ability to grow their businesses, decrease earnings, significantly reduce financial flexibility and/or limit Entergy Corporation’s ability to sustain its current common stock dividend level.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

A downgrade in Entergy Corporations or its subsidiariescredit ratings could negatively affect Entergy Corporations and its subsidiariesability to access capital and/or could require Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries to post collateral, accelerate certain payments, or repay certain indebtedness.

There are a number of factors that rating agencies evaluate to arrive at credit ratings for each of Entergy Corporation and the Registrant Subsidiaries, including each Registrant’s regulatory framework, ability to recover costs and earn returns, diversification and financial strength and liquidity.  If one or more rating agencies downgrade Entergy Corporation’s, any ofownership by the Utility operating companies’,companies of their transmission facilities or System Energy’s ratings, particularly below investment grade, borrowing costs would increase, the potential poolresponsibility for maintaining those facilities, MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of investorsits members and funding sources would likely decrease,administers wholesale energy and cash or letterancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. MISO also exercises functional control of credit collateral demands may be triggered bytransmission planning and congestion management and provides schedules and pricing for the termscommitment and dispatch of generation that is offered into MISO’s markets, as well as pricing for load that bids into the markets. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a numberbilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of commodity contracts, leases,their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and other agreements.


real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. Each Utility operating company has its own transmission pricing zone and a formula rate template (included as Attachment O to the MISO tariff) used to
288
258

Part I Item 1A & 1B1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



establish transmission rates within MISO. The terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs, are subject to regulation by the FERC.
Most
System Energy and Related Agreements

System Energy recovers costs related to its interest in Grand Gulf through rates charged to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans for capacity and energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (described below).  In July 2001 a rate proceeding commenced by System Energy at the FERC in 1995 became final, with the FERC approving a prospective 10.94% return on equity.    In 1998 the FERC approved requests by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi to accelerate a portion of Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ large customers, suppliers, and counterparties require sufficient creditworthiness to enter into transactions.  If Entergy Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ ratings decline, particularly below investment grade, or if certain counterparties believe Entergy Corporation or the Utility operating companies are losing creditworthiness and demand adequate assurance under fuel, gas, andtheir Grand Gulf purchased power contracts, the counterparties may require postingobligations.  Entergy Arkansas’s and Entergy Mississippi’s acceleration of collateral in cash or letters of credit, prepayment for fuel, gas orGrand Gulf purchased power or accelerated payment, or counterparties may decline business with Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries. At December 31, 2017, based on power prices at that time, Entergy had liquidity exposure of $167 million under the guarantees in place supporting Entergy Wholesale Commodities transactionsobligations ceased effective July 2001 and $8 million of posted cash collateral. In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation’s credit rating to below investment grade, based on power pricesJuly 2003, respectively, as of December 31, 2017, Entergy would have been required to provide approximately $98 million of additional cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements. In the event of a decrease in the credit ratings of Entergy’s Utility operating companies to below investment grade, those companies collectively could be required to provide up to $50 million of additional cash or letters of credit to MISO. As of December 31, 2017, the liquidity exposure associated with Entergy Wholesale Commodities assurance requirements, including return of previously received collateral from counterparties, would increase by $372 million for a $1 per MMBtu increase in gas prices in both the short- and long-term markets.

Recent U.S. tax legislation may materially adversely affect Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and credit ratings.

The recently enacted H.R. 1, also known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, will significantly change the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, including taxation of U.S. corporations, by, among other things, reducing the federal corporate income tax rate, limiting interest deductions, and altering the expensing of capital expenditures. The legislation is unclear in certain respects and will require interpretations and implementing regulationsapproved by the IRS, as well as state tax authorities, and the legislation could be subject to potential amendments and technical corrections, any of which could lessen or increase certain impacts of the legislation. In addition, the regulatory treatment of the impacts of this legislation, particularly on companies like Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries, will be subject to the discretion of federal, state, and local public utility regulators.

As further described inFERC. See Note 32 to the financial statements for discussion of complaints filed with the FERC regarding System Energy’s return on equity.

Unit Power Sales Agreement

The Unit Power Sales Agreement allocates capacity, energy, and the related costs from System Energy’s ownership and leasehold interests in Grand Gulf to Entergy recordedArkansas (36%), Entergy Louisiana (14%), Entergy Mississippi (33%), and Entergy New Orleans (17%).  Each of these companies is obligated to make payments to System Energy for its entitlement of capacity and energy on a reductionfull cost-of-service basis regardless of certainthe quantity of energy delivered.  Payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are System Energy’s only source of operating revenue.  The financial condition of System Energy depends upon the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf and the receipt of such payments.  Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans generally recover payments made under the Unit Power Sales Agreement through rates charged to their customers.

In the case of Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana, payments are also recovered through sales of electricity from their respective retained shares of Grand Gulf.  Under a settlement agreement entered into with the APSC in 1985 and amended in 1988, Entergy Arkansas retains 22% of its net deferred income tax assets (including36% share of Grand Gulf-related costs and recovers the valueremaining 78% of its net operating loss carryforwards) and regulatory liabilities, resultingshare in rates.  In the event that Entergy Arkansas is not able to sell its retained share to third parties, it may sell such energy to its retail customers at a charge against earnings in the fourth quarter 2017 of $526 million, including a $34 million net-of-tax reduction of regulatory liabilities,price equal to its avoided cost, which is currently less than Entergy Arkansas’s cost from its retained share.  Entergy Arkansas has life-of-resources purchased power agreements with Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans that sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s retained share of Grand Gulf to those companies, with the remainder of the retained share being sold to Entergy Mississippi through a separate life-of-resources purchased power agreement.  In a series of LPSC orders, court decisions, and the Utility operating companies recorded a reductionagreements from late 1985 to mid-1988, Entergy Louisiana was granted rate relief with respect to costs associated with Entergy Louisiana’s share of approximately $3.7 billion on a consolidated basis incapacity and energy from Grand Gulf, subject to certain terms and conditions.  Entergy Louisiana retains and does not recover from retail ratepayers 18% of its net deferred tax liabilities and a corresponding increase in net regulatory liabilities. Depending on the outcome14% share of the ratemaking process, IRS examinations, or tax positionscosts of Grand Gulf capacity and elections thatenergy and recovers the remaining 82% of its share in rates.  Entergy Louisiana is allowed to recover through the fuel adjustment clause at 4.6 cents per kWh for the energy related to its retained portion of these costs.  Alternatively, Entergy Louisiana may elect,sell such energy to non-affiliated parties at prices above the fuel adjustment clause recovery amount, subject to the LPSC’s approval. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries may be requiredArkansas also has a life-of-resources purchased power agreement with Entergy Mississippi to record additional charges or credits to income tax expense. Further, the amount and timingsell a portion of the returnoutput of Entergy Arkansas’s non-retained share of Grand Gulf. Entergy Mississippi was granted rate relief for those purchases by the deferred taxes to customers is dependent upon the regulatory treatment received, and, if the Registrant Subsidiaries are unsuccessful in receiving balanced regulatory treatment, Entergy’s or the Utility operating companies’ cash flow could be materially adversely affected. Further, there may be other material effects resulting from the legislation that have not been identified. While Entergy plans to financeMPSC through its cash needs that result from the Act through a combination of Registrant Subsidiary debtannual unit power cost rate mechanism.

Availability Agreement

The Availability Agreement among System Energy and Entergy Corporation debtArkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and equity, there can be no assurance that Entergy orNew Orleans was entered into in 1974 in connection with the Registrant Subsidiaries will obtain debt or equity financing on terms that are satisfactory or consistent with their current expectations.

In addition, while Moody’s changed the ratings outlooks for Entergy Corporation to negative from stable in reaction to the legislation, it is unclear when or how capital markets, other credit rating agencies, the FERC or state or local regulators may respond to this legislation. Entergy expects that certain financial metrics used by credit rating agencies will be negatively affected as a result of the return of excess deferred taxes to customers, increased debt, and the decrease in the Registrant Subsidiaries’ revenue requirements, and related decrease in operating cash flows, expected as a consequence of the lower federal corporate income tax rate while, at the same time, the loss of the bonus depreciation tax deduction will increase taxable income in the future. Also, the timing of the return of excess deferred income taxes

System Energy
289
259

Part I Item 1A & 1B1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



of Grand Gulf. The Availability Agreement provides that System Energy make available to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans all capacity and energy available from System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans also agreed severally to customers willpay System Energy monthly for the right to receive capacity and energy from Grand Gulf in amounts that (when added to any amounts received by System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement) would at least equal System Energy’s total operating expenses for Grand Gulf (including depreciation at a specified rate and expenses incurred in a permanent shutdown of Grand Gulf) and interest charges.

The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement are fixed as follows: Entergy Arkansas - 17.1%; Entergy Louisiana - 26.9%; Entergy Mississippi - 31.3%; and Entergy New Orleans - 24.7%. The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement would remain in effect and would govern payments made under such agreement in the event of a shortfall of funds available to System Energy from other sources, including payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

System Energy has assigned its rights to payments and advances from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under the Availability Agreement as security for its two outstanding series of first mortgage bonds.  In these assignments, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans further agreed that, in the event they were prohibited by governmental action from making payments under the Availability Agreement (for example, if the FERC reduced or disallowed such payments as constituting excessive rates), they would then make subordinated advances to System Energy in the same amounts and at the same times as the prohibited payments. System Energy would not exactly matchbe allowed to repay these subordinated advances so long as it remained in default under the lower taxesrelated indebtedness or in other similar circumstances.

Each of the assignment agreements relating to the Availability Agreement provides that Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans will make payments directly to System Energy. However, if there is an event of default, those payments must be paying which will result in cash outflows to customers. It is also uncertain how other credit rating agencies will treat the impacts of this legislation on their credit ratings and metrics, and whether additional avenues will evolve for companies to manage the adverse aspects of this legislation. These avenues,made directly to the extent availableholders of indebtedness that are the beneficiaries of such assignment agreements. The payments must be made pro rata according to the amount of the respective obligations secured.

The obligations of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and if successfully applied, could lessenEntergy New Orleans to make payments under the impacts on certain credit metrics, although there canAvailability Agreement are subject to the receipt and continued effectiveness of all necessary regulatory approvals.  Sales of capacity and energy under the Availability Agreement would require that the Availability Agreement be submitted to the FERC for approval with respect to the terms of such sale. No such filing with the FERC has been made because sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf are being made pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement.  If, for any reason, sales of capacity and energy are made in the future pursuant to the Availability Agreement, the jurisdictional portions of the Availability Agreement would be submitted to the FERC for approval.

Since commercial operation of Grand Gulf began, payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement to System Energy have exceeded the amounts payable under the Availability Agreement and, therefore, no assurance in this regard.

Entergy believes that interpretations and implementing regulations bypayments under the IRS, as well as potential amendments and technical corrections, could result in lessening the impacts of certain aspects of this legislation.Availability Agreement have ever been required.  If Entergy Arkansas or Entergy Mississippi fails to make its Unit Power Sales Agreement payments, and System Energy is unable to successfully pursue avenues to manage the effects of the new tax legislation, or if additional interpretations, regulations, amendments, or technical corrections exacerbate the effects of the legislation, the legislationobtain funds from other sources, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows, and could result in additional credit rating agency actions. Any such actions by credit rating agencies may make it more difficult and costly for Entergy to issue debt securities and certain other types of financing and could increase borrowing costs under its credit facilities.

For further information regarding the effects of the Act, see the “Income Tax Legislation” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy. Also, Note 3 to the financial statements contains additional discussion of the effect of the Act on 2017 results of operations and financial position, the provisions of the Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Act, and Note 2 to the financial statements discusses proceedings commenced or other responses by Entergy’s regulators to the Act.

Changes in taxation as well as the inherent difficulty in quantifying potential tax effects of business decisions could negatively impact Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

Entergy and its subsidiaries make judgments regarding the potential tax effects of various transactions and results of operations to estimate their obligations to taxing authorities.  These tax obligations include income, franchise, real estate, sales and use, and employment-related taxes.  These judgments include provisions for potential adverse outcomes regarding tax positions that have been taken.  Entergy and its subsidiaries also estimate their ability to utilize tax benefits, including those in the form of carryforwards for which the benefits have already been reflected in the financial statements.  Changes in federal, state, or local tax laws, adverse tax audit results or adverse tax rulings on positions taken by Entergy and its subsidiaries could negatively affect Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. For further information regarding Entergy’s income taxes, see Note 3 to the financial statements.

Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to successfully complete strategic transactions, including merger, acquisition, divestiture, joint venture, restructuring or other strategic transactions, is subject to significant risks, including the risk that required regulatory or governmental approvals may not be obtained, risks relating to unknown or undisclosed problems or liabilities, and the risk that for these or other reasons, Entergy and its subsidiaries may be unable to achieve some or all of the benefits that they anticipate from such transactions.

From time to time, Entergy and its subsidiaries have pursued and may continue to pursue strategic transactions including merger, acquisition, divestiture, joint venture, restructuring or other strategic transactions. For example, in November 2016, Entergy announced that it had entered into a purchase and sale agreement with NorthStar for the sale of 100% of the membership interests in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, which owns the Vermont Yankee plant. In addition, as part of Entergy’s plan to exit the merchant power business, it plans to shut down its remaining merchant nuclear power plants by mid-2022. These transactions and plans are or may become subject to regulatory approvalclaims or demands by System Energy or its creditors for payments or advances under the Availability Agreement (or the assignments thereof) equal to the difference between their required Unit Power Sales Agreement payments and their required Availability Agreement payments because their Availability Agreement obligations exceed their Unit Power Sales Agreement obligations.

The Availability Agreement may be terminated, amended, or modified by mutual agreement of the parties thereto, without further consent of any assignees or other material conditions or contingencies. The failure to complete these transactions or plans or any future strategic transaction successfully or on a timely basis could have an adverse effect on Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations and the market’s perception of Entergy’s ability to execute its strategy. Further, these transactions, and any completed or future strategic transactions, involve substantial risks, including the following:


creditors.
290
260

Part I Item 1A & 1B1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy




the disposition of a business or asset may involve continued financial involvement in the divested business, such as through continuing equity ownership, transition service agreements, guarantees, indemnities, or other current or contingent financial obligations;Service Companies

Entergy may encounter difficulty in finding buyers or executing alternative exit strategies on acceptable terms inServices, a timely manner when it decideslimited liability company wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation, provides management, administrative, accounting, legal, engineering, and other services primarily to sell an asset or a business, which could delay the accomplishment of its strategic objectives. Alternatively, Entergy may dispose of a business or asset at a price or on terms that are less than what it had anticipated, or with the exclusion of assets that must be divested or run off separately;
the disposition of a business could result in impairments and related write-offs of the carrying values of the relevant assets;
acquired businesses or assets may not produce revenues, earnings or cash flow at anticipated levels;
acquired businesses or assets could have environmental, permitting or other problems for which contractual protections prove inadequate;
Entergy and/or its subsidiaries may assume liabilities that were not disclosed to them, that exceed their estimates, or for which their rights to indemnification from the seller are limited;
the disposition of a business, including Entergy’s planned exit from the merchant power business, could divert management’s attention from other business concerns;
Entergy and/or its subsidiaries may be unable to obtain the necessary regulatory or governmental approvals to close a transaction, such approvals may be granted subject to terms that are unacceptable to them, or Entergy or its subsidiaries otherwise may be unable to achieve anticipated regulatory treatment of any such transaction or acquired business or assets; and
Entergy or its subsidiaries otherwise may be unable to achieve the full strategic and financial benefits that they anticipate from the transaction, or such benefits may be delayed or may not occur at all.

Entergy may not be successful in managing these or any other significant risks that it may encounter in acquiring or divesting a business, or engaging in other strategic transactions, which could have a material effect on its business.

The construction of, and capital improvements to, power generation facilities involve substantial risks.  Should construction or capital improvement efforts be unsuccessful, the financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity of Entergy and the Utility operating companies, could be materially affected.

Entergy’sbut also provides services to Entergy Wholesale Commodities. Entergy Operations is also wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation and the Utility operating companies’ ability to complete construction of power generation facilities, or make other capital improvements, in a timely mannerprovides nuclear management, operations and within budget is contingent upon many variablesmaintenance services under contract for ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, subject to substantial risks.  These variables include, but are not limitedthe owner oversight of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, respectively.  Entergy Services and Entergy Operations provide their services to project management expertise and escalating costs for materials, labor, and environmental compliance.  Delays in obtaining permits, shortages in materials and qualified labor, suppliers and contractors not performing as required under their contracts, changes in the scope and timing of projects, poor quality initial cost estimates from contractors, the inability to raise capital on favorable terms, changes in commodity prices affecting revenue, fuel costs, or materials costs,  downward changes in the economy, changes in law or regulation, including environmental compliance requirements, and other events beyond the control of the Utility operating companies orand System Energy on an “at cost” basis, pursuant to cost allocation methodologies for these service agreements that were approved by the FERC.

Jurisdictional Separation of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. into Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas

Effective December 31, 2007, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. completed a jurisdictional separation into two vertically integrated utility companies, one operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the PUCT, Entergy Texas, and the other operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the LPSC, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana.  Entergy Texas owns all Entergy Gulf States, Inc. distribution and transmission assets located in Texas, the gas-fired generating plants located in Texas, undivided 42.5% ownership shares of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.’s 70% ownership interest in Nelson Unit 6 and 42% ownership interest in Big Cajun 2, Unit 3, which are coal-fired generating plants located in Louisiana, and other assets and contract rights to the extent related to utility operations in Texas.  Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, owns all of the remaining assets that were owned by Entergy Gulf States, Inc.  On a book value basis, approximately 58.1% of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may occur that may materially affectGulf States, Inc. assets were allocated to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and approximately 41.9% were allocated to Entergy Texas.

Entergy Texas purchases from Entergy Louisiana pursuant to a life-of-unit purchased power agreement a 42.5% share of capacity and energy from the schedule, cost, and performance70% of these projects.  If these projects or other capital improvements are significantly delayed or becomeRiver Bend subject to cost overruns or cancellation,retail regulation.  Entergy Texas was allocated a share of River Bend’s nuclear and environmental liabilities that is identical to the Utility operating companies could incur additional costs and termination payments, or face increased risk of potential write-offshare of the investment inplant’s output purchased by Entergy Texas under the project.purchased power agreement.  In addition, the Utility operating companies could be exposed to higher costs and market volatility, which could affect cash flow and cost recovery, should their respective regulators decline to approve the construction of new generation needed to meet the reliability needs of customers at the lowest reasonable cost.

For further information regarding capital expenditure plans and other uses of capital in connection with the potential constructiontermination of additional generation supply sources within the Utility operating companies’ service territory, and asSystem Agreement effective August 31, 2016, the purchased power agreements that were put in place for certain legacy units at the time of the jurisdictional separation were also terminated at that time. See Note 2 to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysisfinancial statements for Entergy and eachadditional discussion of the Registrant Subsidiaries.purchased power agreements.


Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” (Entergy Louisiana). With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana.

291
261

Part I Item 1A & 1B1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy



The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs to fulfill their obligations related to environmental and other matters.

The businesses in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business operate are subject to extensive environmental regulation by local, state, and federal authorities.  These laws and regulations affect the manner in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business conduct their operations and make capital expenditures.  These laws and regulations also affect how the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business manage air emissions, discharges to water, wetlands impacts, solid and hazardous waste storage and disposal, cooling and service water intake, the protection of threatened and endangered species, certain migratory birds and eagles, hazardous materials transportation, and similar matters.  Federal, state, and local authorities continually revise these laws and regulations, and the laws and regulations are subject to judicial interpretation and to the permitting and enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies.  Developing and implementing plans for facility compliance with these requirements can lead to capital, personnel, and operation and maintenance expenditures.  Violations of these requirements can subject the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to enforcement actions, capital expenditures to bring existing facilities into compliance, additional operating costs or operating restrictions to achieve compliance, remediation and clean-up costs, civil penalties, and exposure to third parties’ claims for alleged health or property damages or for violations of applicable permits or standards.  In addition, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business potentially are subject to liability under these laws for the costs of remediation of environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned or operated by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities and of property contaminated by hazardous substances they generate.  The Utility operating companies are currently involved in proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been released and may be subject to additional proceedings in the future.  The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to environmental compliance.

Emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, mercury, particulates, greenhouse gases, and other regulated air emissions from generating plants are potentially subject to increased regulation, controls and mitigation expenses.  In addition, existing air regulations and programs promulgated by the EPA often are challenged legally, sometimes resulting in large-scale changes to anticipated regulatory regimes and the resulting need to shift course, both operationally and economically, depending on the nature of the changes.  Risks relating to global climate change, initiatives to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions, and water availability issues are discussed below.

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be able to obtain or maintain all required environmental regulatory approvals.  If there is a delay in obtaining any required environmental regulatory approvals, or if Entergy and its subsidiaries fail to obtain, maintain, or comply with any such approval, the operation of its facilities could be stopped or become subject to additional costs.  For further information regarding environmental regulation and environmental matters, see the “Regulation of Entergys Business– Environmental Regulation” section of Part I, Item 1.

The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs related to reliability standards.

Entergy’s business is subject to extensive and mandatory reliability standards.  Such standards, which are established by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC), and other regional enforcement entities, are approved by the FERC and frequently are reviewed, amended, and supplemented.  Failure to comply with such standards could result in the imposition of fines or civil penalties, and potential exposure to third party claims for alleged violations of such standards.  The standards, as well as the laws and regulations that govern them, are subject to judicial interpretation and to the enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies.  In addition to exposure to civil penalties and fines, the Utility operating companies have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to compliance with new and existing reliability standards, including costs associated with the Utility operating companies’ transmission system and generation assets.  The changes to the

292

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


reliability standards applicable to the electric power industry are ongoing, and Entergy cannot predict the ultimate effect that the reliability standards will have on its Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans Internal Restructuring

In November 2017, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans, Inc. undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy New Orleans, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which included a call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. converted from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy Texas)

The effects of weather and economic conditions, and the related impact on electricity and gas usage, may materially affect the Utility operating companiesresults of operations.

Temperatures above normal levels in the summer tend to increase electric cooling demand and revenues, and temperatures below normal levels in the winter tend to increase electric and gas heating demand and revenues.  As a corollary, moderate temperatures in either season tend to decrease usage of energy and resulting revenues.  Seasonal pricing differentials, coupled with higher consumption levels, typically cause the Utility operating companies to report higher revenues in the third quarterNew Orleans Power assumed substantially all of the fiscal year thanliabilities of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. in a transaction regarded as a merger under the other quarters.  Extreme weather conditions or storms,  however, may stressTXBOC. Entergy New Orleans, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility operating companies’ generation facilitiesHolding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and transmission and distribution systems, resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on their ability to meet peak customer demand, increased regulatory oversight, and lower customer satisfaction.  These extreme conditions could have a material effect on the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, resultssubsidiary of operations, and liquidity.

Entergy’s electricity sales volumes are affected by a number of factors, including economic conditions, weather, customer bill sizes (large bills tend to induce conservation), trends in energy efficiency, new technologies and self-generation alternatives, including the willingness and ability of large industrial customers to develop co-generation facilities that greatly reduce their demand from Entergy. Some of these factors are inherently cyclical or temporary in nature, such as the weather or economic conditions, and rarely have a long-lasting effect on Entergy’s operating results.  Others, such as the increasing adoption of energy efficient appliances, new building codes, distributed energy resources, energy storage, demand side management and new technologies such as rooftop solar are having a more permanent effect of reducing sales growth rates from historical norms.Entergy Corporation). As a result of these emerging efficiencies and technologies, the Utility operating companies may experience lower usage per customer in the residential and commercial classes, and further advances have the potential to limit sales growth in the future.  Electricity sales to industrial customers, in particular, benefit from steady economic growth and favorable commodity prices; however, they are sensitive to changes in conditions in the markets in which its customers operate.  Any negative change in any of these or other factors has the potential to result in slower sales growth or sales declines and increased bad debt expense, which could materially affect Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

The effects of climate change and environmental and regulatory obligations intended to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions or to placecontribution, Entergy New Orleans Power is a price on greenhouse gas emissions could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquiditywholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.Holding Company, LLC.

In an effort to address climate change concerns, federal, state, and local authorities are calling for additional laws and regulations aimed at known or suspected causes of climate change.  For example, in response to the United States Supreme Court’s 2007 decision holding that the EPA has authority to regulate emissions of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” under the Clean Air Act, the EPA, various environmental interest groups, and other organizations are focusing considerable attention on CO2 emissions from power generation facilities and their potential role in climate change.  In 2010, the EPA promulgated its first regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions from certain vehicles and from new and significantly modified stationary sources of emissions, including electric generating units.  During 2012 and 2014, the EPA proposed CO2 emission standards for new and existing sources. The EPA finalized these standards in 2015; however, in late 2017, the EPA proposed to repeal the regulations and issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for replacing certain aspects of the standards for existing sources. As examples of state action, in the Northeast, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative establishes a cap on CO2 emissions from electric power plants and requires generators to purchase emission permits to cover their CO2 emissions, and a similar program has been

293

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


developed in California. The impact that recent changes in the federal government will have on existing and pending environmental laws and regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions is currently unclear.

Developing and implementing plans for compliance with greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements can lead to additional capital, personnel, and operation and maintenance expenditures and could significantly affect the economic position of existing facilities and proposed projects; moreover, long-term planning to meet environmental requirements can be negatively impacted and costs may increase to the extent laws and regulations change prior to full implementation.  These requirements could, in turn, lead to changes in the planning or operations of balancing authorities or organized markets in areas where the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities do business. Violations of such requirements may subject Entergy Wholesale Commodities and the Utility operating companies to enforcement actions, capital expenditures to bring existing facilities into compliance, additional operating costs or operating restrictions to achieve compliance, civil penalties, and exposure to third parties’ claims for alleged health or property damages or for violations of applicable permits or standards.  To the extent Entergy believes any of these costs are recoverable in rates, however, additional material rate increases for customers could be resisted by Entergy’s regulators and, in extreme cases, Entergy’s regulators might deny or defer timely recovery of these costs.  Future changes in environmental regulation governing the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases could make some of Entergy’s electric generating units uneconomical to maintain or operate, and could increase the difficulty that Entergy and its subsidiaries have with obtaining or maintaining required environmental regulatory approvals, which could also materially affect the financial condition, results of operations and liquidity of Entergy and its subsidiaries.  In addition, lawsuits have occurred or are reasonably expected against emitters of greenhouse gases alleging that these companies are liable for personal injuries and property damage caused by climate change.  These lawsuits may seek injunctive relief, monetary compensation, and punitive damages.


In additionDecember 2017, Entergy New Orleans, Inc. changed its name to the regulatory and financial risks associated with climate change discussed above, potential physical risks from climate change include an increase in sea level, wind and storm surge damages, wetland and barrier island erosion, risks of flooding and changes in weather conditions, (such as increases in precipitation, drought, or changes in average temperatures)Entergy Utility Group, Inc., and potential increased impacts of extreme weather conditions or storms.  Entergy subsidiaries own assets in, and serve, communities that are at risk from sea level rise, changes in weather conditions, storms, and loss of the protection offered by coastal wetlands.  A significant portion of the nation’s oil and gas infrastructure is located in these areas and susceptible to storm damage that could be aggravated by wetland and barrier island erosion, which could give rise to fuel supply interruptions and price spikes. Entergy and its subsidiaries also face the risk that climate change could impact the availability and quality of water supply necessary for operations.

These and other physical changes could result in changes in customer demand, increased costs associated with repairing and maintaining generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on the Entergy System’s ability to meet peak customer demand, increased regulatory oversight, and lower customer satisfaction.  Also, to the extent that climate change adversely impacts the economic health of a region or results in energy conservation or demand side management programs, it may adversely impact customer demand and revenues.  Such physical or operational risks could have a material effect on Entergy’s, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’, System Energy’s, and the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

Continued and future availability and quality of water for cooling, process, and sanitary uses could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.

Water is a vital natural resource that is also critical to the Utility operating companies’, System Energy’s, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ business operations.  Entergy’s facilities use water for cooling, boiler make-up, sanitary uses, potable supply, and many other uses.  Three of Entergy’s Utility operating companies own and/or operate hydroelectric facilities.  Accordingly, water availability and quality are critical to Entergy’s business operations.  Impacts to water availability or quality could negatively impact both operations and revenues.


294

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Entergy secures water through various mechanisms (ground water wells, surface waters intakes, municipal supply, etc.) and operates under the provisions and conditions set forth by the provider and/or regulatory authorities.  Entergy also obtains and operates in substantial compliance with water discharge permits issued under various provisions of the Clean Water Act and/or state water pollution control provisions. Regulations and authorizations for both water intake and use and for waste discharge can become more stringent in times of water shortages, low flows in rivers, low lake levels, low groundwater aquifer volumes, and similar conditions.  The increased use of water by industry, agriculture, and the population at large, population growth, and the potential impacts of climate change on water resources may cause water use restrictions that affect Entergy and its subsidiaries.

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be adequately hedged against changes in commodity prices, which could materially affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

To manage near-term financial exposure related to commodity price fluctuations, Entergy and its subsidiaries, including the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, may enter into contracts to hedge portions of their purchase and sale commitments, fuel requirements, and inventories of natural gas, uranium and its conversion and enrichment, coal, refined products, and other commodities, within established risk management guidelines.  As part of this strategy, Entergy and its subsidiaries may utilize fixed- and variable-price forward physical purchase and sales contracts, futures, financial swaps, and option contracts traded in the over-the-counter markets or on exchanges.  However, Entergy and its subsidiaries normally cover only a portion of the exposure of their assets and positions to market price volatility, and the coverage will vary over time.  In addition, Entergy also elects to leave certain volumes during certain years unhedged.  To the extent Entergy and its subsidiaries have unhedged positions, fluctuating commodity prices can materially affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ results of operations and financial position.

Although Entergy and its subsidiaries devote a considerable effort to these risk management strategies, they cannot eliminate all the risks associated with these activities.  As a result of these and other factors, Entergy and its subsidiaries cannot predict with precision the impact that risk management decisions may have on their business, results of operations, or financial position.

Entergy’s over-the-counter financial derivatives are subject to rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that are designed to promote transparency, mitigate systemic risk and protect against market abuse. Entergy cannot predict the impact any proposed or not fully-implemented final rules will have on its ability to hedge its commodity price risk or on over-the-counter derivatives markets as a whole, but such rules and regulations could have a material effect on Entergy's risk exposure, as well as reduce market liquidity and further increase the cost of hedging activities.

Entergy has guaranteed or indemnified the performance of a portion of the obligations relating to hedging and risk management activities.  Reductions in Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ credit quality or changes in the market prices of energy commodities could increase the cash or letter of credit collateral required to be posted in connection with hedging and risk management activities, which could materially affect Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ liquidity and financial position.

The Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties may not meet their obligations, which may materially affect the Utility operating companies and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

The hedging and risk management practices of the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties that owe Entergy and its subsidiaries money, energy, or other commodities will not perform their obligations.  Currently, some hedging agreements contain provisions that require the counterparties to provide credit support to secure all or part of their obligations to Entergy or its subsidiaries.  If the counterparties to these arrangements fail to perform, Entergy or its subsidiaries may enforce and recover the proceeds from the credit support provided and acquire alternative hedging arrangements, which credit

295

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


support may not always be adequate to cover the related obligations.  In such event, Entergy and its subsidiaries might incur losses in addition to amounts, if any, already paid to the counterparties.  In addition, the credit commitments of Entergy’s lenders under its bank facilities may not be honored for a variety of reasons, including unexpected periods of financial distress affecting such lenders, which could materially affect the adequacy of its liquidity sources.

Market performance and other changes may decrease the value of benefit plan assets, which then could require additional funding and result in increased benefit plan costs.

The performance of the capital markets affects the values of the assets held in trust under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans.  A decline in the market value of the assets may increase the funding requirements relating to Entergy’s benefit plan liabilities and also result in higher benefit costs. As the value of the assets decreases, the “expected return on assets” component of benefit costs decreases, resulting in higher benefits costs. Additionally, asset losses are incorporated into benefit costs over time, thus increasing benefits costs.  Volatility in the capital markets has affected the market value of these assets, which may affect Entergy’s planned levels of contributions in the future.  Additionally, changes in interest rates affect the liabilities under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans; as interest rates decrease, the liabilities increase, potentially requiring additional funding and recognition of higher liability carrying costs.  The funding requirements of the obligations related to the pension benefit plans can also increase as a result of changes in, among other factors, retirement rates, life expectancy assumptions, or Federal regulations.  For further information regarding Entergy’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans, refer to the “Critical Accounting Estimates– Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy and each of its Registrant Subsidiaries and Note 11 to the financial statements.

The litigation environment in the states in which certain Entergy subsidiaries operate poses a significant risk to those businesses.

Entergy and its subsidiaries are involved in the ordinary course of business in a number of lawsuits involving employment, commercial, asbestos, hazardous material and ratepayer matters, and injuries and damages issues, among other matters.  The states in which the Utility operating companies operate, in particular Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, have proven to be unusually litigious environments.  Judges and juries in these states have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases.  Entergy and its subsidiaries use legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against them, but the litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk.

Domestic or international terrorist attacks, including cyber attacks, and failures or breaches of Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ technology systems may adversely affect Entergy’s results of operations.

As power generators and distributors, Entergy and its subsidiaries face heightened risk of an act or threat of terrorism, including physical and cyber attacks, either as a direct act against one of Entergy’s generation facilities, transmission operations centers, or distribution infrastructure used to manage and transport power to customers. An actual act could affect Entergy’s ability to operate, including its ability to operate the information technology systems and network infrastructure on which it relies to conduct its business. While malware was recently discovered on our corporate network and remediated on a timely basis, it did not affect the company’s operational systems, nuclear plants or transmission network, nor did it have a material effect on our operations. Additionally, within Entergy’s industry, there have been attacks on energy infrastructure, but with minimal impact to operations, and there may be more attacks in the future. The Utility operating companies also face heightened risk of an act or threat by cyber criminals intent on accessing personal information for the purpose of committing identity theft, taking company-sensitive data, or disrupting the company’s ability to operate.

Entergy and its subsidiaries operate in a highly regulated industry that requires the continued operation of sophisticated information technology systems and network infrastructure in accordance with mandatory and prescriptive standards. Despite the implementation of multiple layers of security by Entergy and its subsidiaries,

296

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


technology systems remain vulnerable to potential threats that could lead to unauthorized access or loss of availability to critical systems essential to the reliable operation of Entergy’s electric system. Moreover, the functionality of Entergy’s technology systems depends on both its and third-party systems to which Entergy is connected directly or indirectly (such as systems belonging to suppliers, vendors and contractors). While Entergy has processes in place to assess systems of certain of these suppliers, vendors and contractors, Entergy does not ultimately control the adequacy of their defenses against cyber and other attacks, but has implemented oversight measures to assess maturity and manage third-party risk. If Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ technology systems were compromised and unable to detect or recover in a timely fashion to a normal state of operations, Entergy or its subsidiaries may be unable to perform critical business functions that are essential to the company’s well-being and the health, safety, and security needs of its customers. In addition, an attack on its information technology infrastructure may result in a loss of its confidential, sensitive, and proprietary information, including personal information of its customers, employees, vendors, and others in Entergy’s care.
Any such attacks, failures or breaches could have a material effect on Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ business, financial condition, results of operations or reputation. Insurance may not be adequate to cover losses that might arise in connection with these events. The risk of such attacks, failures, or breaches may cause Entergy and the Utility operating companies to incur increased capital and operating costs to implement increased security for its power generation, transmission, and distribution assets and other facilities, such as additional physical facility security and security personnel, and for systems to protect its information technology and network infrastructure systems. Such events may also expose Entergy to an increased risk of litigation (and associated damages and fines).

(Entergy New Orleans)

The effect of higher purchased gas cost charges to customers taking gas service may adversely affect Entergy New Orleans’s results of operations and liquidity.

Gas rates charged to retail gas customers are comprised primarily of purchased gas cost charges, which provide no return or profitOrleans Power then changed its name to Entergy New Orleans, and distribution charges, which provide a return or profit to the utility.  Distribution charges are affected by the amount of gas sold to customers.  Purchased gas cost charges, which comprise most of a customer’s bill and may be adjusted monthly, represent gas commodity costs thatLLC. Entergy New Orleans, recovers from its customers.  Entergy New Orleans’s cash flows can be affected by differences between the time period when gas is purchased and the time when ultimate recovery from customers occurs.  When purchased gas cost charges increase substantially reflecting higher gas procurement costs incurred by Entergy New Orleans, customer usage may decrease, especially in weaker economic times, resulting in lower distribution charges for Entergy New Orleans, which could adversely affect results of operations.

(System Energy)

System Energy owns and, through an affiliate, operates a single nuclear generating facility, and it is dependent on affiliated companies for all of its revenues.

System Energy’s operating revenues are derived from the allocation of the capacity, energy, and related costs associated with its 90% ownership/leasehold interest in Grand Gulf.  Charges under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are paid by the Utility operating companies as consideration for their respective entitlements to receive capacity and energy.  The useful economic life of Grand Gulf is finite and is limited by the terms of its operating license, which expires in November 2044. System Energy’s financial condition depends both on the receipt of payments from the Utility operating companies under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and on the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf.

For information regarding the Unit Power Sales Agreement, the sale and leaseback transactions and certain other agreements relating to the Entergy System companies’ support of System Energy (including the Capital Funds

297

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Agreement), see Notes 8 and 10 to the financial statements and the “Utility - System Energy and Related Agreements” section of Part I, Item 1.

(Entergy Corporation)

As a holding company, Entergy Corporation depends on cash distributions from its subsidiaries to meet its debt service and other financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock.

Entergy Corporation is a holding company with no material revenue generating operations of its own or material assets other than the stock of its subsidiaries.  Accordingly, all of its operations are conducted by its subsidiaries.  Entergy Corporation’s ability to satisfy its financial obligations, including the payment of interest and principal on its outstanding debt, and to pay dividends on its common stock depends on the payment to it of dividends or distributions by its subsidiaries.  The payments of dividends or distributions to Entergy Corporation by its subsidiaries in turn depend on their results of operations and cash flows and other items affecting retained earnings, and on any applicable legal, regulatory, or contractual limitations on subsidiaries’ ability to pay such dividends or distributions.  Provisions in the articles of incorporation of certain of Entergy Corporation’s subsidiaries restrict the payment of cash dividends to Entergy Corporation.  For further information regarding dividend or distribution restrictions to Entergy Corporation, see Note 7 to the financial statements.


(Page left blank intentionally)


ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Results of Operations

Net Income

2017 Compared to 2016

Net income decreased $27.4 million primarily due to higher nuclear refueling outage expenses, higher depreciation and amortization expenses, higher taxes other than income taxes, and higher interest expense, partially offset by higher other income.

2016 Compared to 2015

Net income increased $92.9 million primarily due to higher net revenue and lower other operation and maintenance expenses, partially offset by a higher effective income tax rate and higher depreciation and amortization expenses.

Net Revenue

2017 Compared to 2016

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges (credits).  Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2017 to 2016.
Amount
(In Millions)
2016 net revenue
$1,520.5
Retail electric price33.8
Opportunity sales5.6
Asset retirement obligation(14.8)
Volume/weather(29.0)
Other6.5
2017 net revenue
$1,522.6

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to the implementation of formula rate plan rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017 and an increase in base rates effective February 24, 2016, each as approved by the APSC. A significant portion of the base rate increase was related to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station in March 2016. The increase was partially offset by decreases in the energy efficiency rider, as approved by the APSC, effective April 2016 and January 2017. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate case and formula rate plan filings. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

The opportunity sales variance results from the estimated net revenue effect of the 2017 and 2016 FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding attributable to wholesale customers. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the opportunity sales proceeding.


300

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


The asset retirement obligation affects net revenue because Entergy Arkansas records a regulatory charge or credit for the difference between asset retirement obligation-related expenses and decommissioning trust fund earnings plus asset retirement obligation-related costs collected in revenue. The variance is primarily caused by a decrease in regulatory credits because of an increase in decommissioning trust fund earnings, including portfolio rebalancing for the ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning trust funds.
The volume/weather variance is primarily due to the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales during the billed and unbilled sales periods. The decrease was partially offset by an increase of 733 GWh, or 11%, in industrial usage primarily due to a new customer in the primary metals industry.

2016 Compared to 2015

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges (credits).  Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.
Amount
(In Millions)
2015 net revenue
$1,362.2
Retail electric price161.5
Other(3.2)
2016 net revenue
$1,520.5

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to an increase in base rates, as approved by the APSC. The new base rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. The increase includes an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. A significant portion of the increase was related to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station in March 2016. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate case. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

Other Income Statement Variances

2017 Compared to 2016

Nuclear refueling outage expenses increased primarily due to the amortization of higher costs associated with the most recent outages compared to previous outages.

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to:

the deferral in the first quarter 2016 of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance, as approved by the APSC as part of the 2015 rate case settlement. These costs are being amortized over a ten-year period beginning March 2016. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate case settlement;
an increase of $9.5 million in transmission and distribution expenses primarily due to higher vegetation maintenance costs and higher labor costs, including contract labor;
an increase of $5.9 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to higher incentive-based compensation accruals in 2017 as compared to the prior year; and
the effect of recording in July 2016 the final court decision in a lawsuit against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. The damages awarded included the reimbursement of $5.5 million of spent nuclear fuel

301

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


storage costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s spent nuclear fuel litigation.

The increase was partially offset by:

a decrease of $16 million in nuclear generation expenses primarily due to a decrease in regulatory compliance costs compared to the prior year, partially offset by higher nuclear labor costs, including contract labor, to position the nuclear fleet to meet its operational goals. The decrease in regulatory compliance costs is primarily related to NRC inspection activities in 2016 as a result of the NRC’s March 2015 decision to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” of the NRC’s reactor oversight process action matrix. See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of the ANO stator incident and subsequent NRC reviews;
a decrease of $11.5 million in energy efficiency expenses primarily due to the timing of recovery from customers; and
a decrease of $5.2 million in fossil-fueled generation expenses primarily due to lower long-term service agreement costs, partially offset by an overall higher scope of work including plant outages in 2017 compared to 2016.

Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to an increase in ad valorem taxes primarily due to higher assessments and higher millage rates and an increase in local franchise taxes primarily due to higher billing factors.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station purchased in March 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

Other income increased primarily due to higher realized gains in 2017 compared to 2016 on the decommissioning trust fund investments, including portfolio rebalancing for the ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning trust funds.

Interest expense increased primarily due to:

an increase of $3.3 million in estimated interest expense recorded in connection with the opportunity sales proceeding. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the opportunity sales proceeding; and
the issuance in May 2017 of $220 million of 3.5% Series first mortgage bonds and the issuance in June 2016 of $55 million of 3.5% Series first mortgage bonds, partially offset by the redemption in July 2016 of $60 million of 6.38% Series first mortgage bonds and the redemption in February 2016 of $175 million of 5.66% Series first mortgage bonds. See Note 5 to the financial statements for further discussion of long-term debt.

2016 Compared to 2015

Nuclear refueling outage expenses increased primarily due to the amortization of higher costs associated with the most recent outages compared to previous outages.

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $21.6 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to a decrease in net periodic pension and other postretirement benefits costs as a result of an increase in the discount rate used to value the benefit liabilities and a refinement in the approach used to estimate the service cost and interest cost components of pension and other postretirement costs. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for further discussion of pension and other postretirement benefits costs;

302

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


the deferral of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance, as approved by the APSC as part of the 2015 rate case settlement. These costs are being amortized over a ten-year period beginning March 2016. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate case settlement; and
a decrease of $7.2 million in energy efficiency costs, including the effects of true-ups to the energy efficiency filings for fixed costs to be collected from customers and incentives recognized as a result of participation in energy efficiency programs.

The decrease was partially offset by an increase of $24.1 million in nuclear generation expenses primarily due to an overall higher scope of work performed during plant outages and higher nuclear labor costs compared to prior year and an increase of $8.2 million in fossil-fueled generation expenses primarily due to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station in March 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

Taxes other than income taxes decreased primarily due to a decrease in local franchise taxes resulting from lower residential and commercial revenues compared to the prior year and a decrease in payroll taxes.
Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station purchased in March 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.
Interest expense increased primarily due to:

$5.1 million in estimated interest expense recorded in connection with the FERC orders issued in April 2016 in the opportunity sales proceeding. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the opportunity sales proceeding; and
the net issuance of $230 million of first mortgage bonds in 2016. See Note 5 to the financial statements for further discussion of long-term debt.

Income Taxes

The effective income tax rates for 2017, 2016, and 2015 were 40.1%, 39.2%, and 35.3%, respectively. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 35% to the effective income tax rates.

Income Tax Legislation

See the “Income Tax Legislation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal income tax legislation enacted in December 2017. Note 3 to the financial statements contains additional discussion of the effect of the Act on 2017 results of operations and financial position, the provisions of the Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Act, and Note 2 to the financial statements discusses proceedings commenced or other responses by Entergy’s regulators to the Act.



303

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 were as follows:
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
$20,509
 
$9,135
 
$218,505
      
Net cash provided by (used in):   
  
Operating activities555,556
 676,511
 474,890
Investing activities(829,312) (947,995) (685,274)
Financing activities259,463
 282,858
 1,014
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents(14,293) 11,374
 (209,370)
      
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
$6,216
 
$20,509
 
$9,135

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $121 million in 2017 primarily due to income tax refunds of $8.1 million in 2017 compared to income tax refunds of $135.7 million in 2016. Entergy Arkansas had income tax refunds in 2016 and 2017 in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement. The income tax refunds in 2017 resulted from the utilization of Entergy Arkansas’s net operating losses. The 2016 income tax refunds resulted primarily from adjustments associated with the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a discussion of the income tax audit.

Net cash flow provided by operating activities increased $201.6 million in 2016 primarily due to:

income tax refunds of $135.7 million in 2016 compared to income tax payments of $103.3 million in 2015. Entergy Arkansas had income tax refunds in 2016 and income tax payments in 2015 in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement. The 2016 income tax refunds resulted primarily from adjustments associated with the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit whereas the income tax payments in 2015 resulted primarily from final settlement of amounts outstanding associated with the 2006-2007 IRS audit as well as adjustments associated with the settlement of the 2008-2009 IRS audit. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the income tax audits;
the timing of payments to vendors; and
an increase in net revenue.

The increase was partially offset by a decrease due to the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs.

Investing Activities

Net cash flow used in investing activities decreased $118.7 million in 2017 primarily due to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station in March 2016 for approximately $237 million and a decrease of $35.5 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a lower scope of work performed in 2017. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.


304

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


The decrease was partially offset by:

an increase of $50.4 million in nuclear construction expenditures primarily due to a higher scope of work performed on various nuclear projects in 2017;
an increase of $37.7 million as a result of fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements in the Utility business, material and service deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle;
an increase of $32.9 million in information technology construction expenditures primarily due to increased spending on substation technology upgrades;
an increase of $22.3 million in fossil-fueled generation construction expenditures primarily due to a higher scope of work performed on various projects in 2017; and
an increase of $11.2 million due to increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure.

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $262.7 million in 2016 primarily due to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station in March 2016 for approximately $237 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase. The increase was partially offset by fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements in the Utility business, material and service deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle.

Financing Activities

Net cash flow provided by financing activities decreased $23.4 million in 2017 primarily due to:

a $200 million capital contribution received from Entergy Corporation in March 2016 primarily in anticipation of Entergy Arkansas’s purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station;
the net issuance of $119.1 million of long-term debt in 2017 compared to the net issuance of $189.1 million of long-term debt in 2016; and
$15 million in common stock dividends paid in 2017 resulting from Entergy Arkansas’s routine evaluation of its ability to pay dividends. There were no common stock dividends paid in 2016 in anticipation of the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station.

The decrease was partially offset by:

money pool activity;
the redemptions of $75 million of 6.45% Series preferred stock and $10 million of 6.08% Series preferred stock in 2016; and
net short-term borrowings of $50 million on the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility in 2017 compared to net repayments of $11.7 million in 2016.

Increases in Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool are a source of cash flow, and Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool increased by $114.9 million in 2017 compared to decreasing by $1.5 million in 2016. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.

Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $281.8 million in 2016 primarily due to:

the net issuance of $189.1 million of long-term debt in 2016 compared to the net retirement of $13.2 million of long-term debt in 2015;
a $200 million capital contribution received from Entergy Corporation in March 2016 primarily in anticipation of Entergy Arkansas’s purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station; and
net repayments of $11.7 million on the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility in 2016 compared to net repayments of $36.3 million in 2015.

305

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


The increase was partially offset by the redemptions of $75 million of 6.45% Series preferred stock and $10 million of 6.08% Series preferred stock in 2016 and money pool activity.

Decreases in Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool decreased by $1.5 million in 2016 compared to increasing by $52.7 million in 2015.

See Note 5 to the financial statements for further details of long-term debt.

Capital Structure

Entergy Arkansas’s capitalization is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table.
 December 31,
2017
 December 31,
2016
Debt to capital55.5% 55.3%
Effect of excluding the securitization bonds(0.3%) (0.4%)
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)55.2% 54.9%
Effect of subtracting cash—% (0.2%)
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)55.2% 54.7%

(a)Calculation excludes the securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy Arkansas.

Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents. Debt consists of short-term borrowings and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion. Capital consists of debt, preferred stock without sinking fund, and common equity. Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents. Entergy Arkansas uses the debt to capital ratios excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes they provide useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Arkansas’s financial condition because the securitization bonds are non-recourse to Entergy Arkansas, as more fully described in Note 5 to the financial statements. Entergy Arkansas also uses the net debt to net capital ratio excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Arkansas’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy Arkansas’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.

Entergy Arkansas seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings.  To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a dividend, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the targeted capital structure.  To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Arkansas may issue incremental debt or reduce dividends, or both, to maintain its targeted capital structure.  In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing dividends, Entergy Arkansas may receive equity contributions to maintain the targeted capital structure.

Uses of Capital

Entergy Arkansas requires capital resources for:

construction and other capital investments;
debt and preferred stock maturities or retirements;
working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel and purchased power costs; and
dividend and interest payments.


306

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Following are the amounts of Entergy Arkansas’s planned construction and other capital investments.
 2018 2019 2020
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:   
  
Generation
$190
 
$240
 
$225
Transmission170
 165
 175
Distribution225
 245
 225
Utility Support110
 85
 85
Total
$695
 
$735
 
$710

Following are the amounts of Entergy Arkansas’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 2018 2019-2020 2021-2022 after 2022 Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)
$125
 
$266
 
$672
 
$4,208
 
$5,271
Operating leases
$17
 
$29
 
$16
 
$24
 
$86
Purchase obligations (b)
$595
 
$1,050
 
$863
 
$5,369
 
$7,877

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Arkansas, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which are discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements.

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, Entergy Arkansas currently expects to contribute approximately $64.1 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $472 thousand to its other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2018, although the 2018 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2018 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.  See “Critical Accounting Estimates– Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.

Also in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy Arkansas has ($117.7) million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions.  See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.

In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Arkansas includes specific investments, such as transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to enhance reliability and improve service to customers, including investment to support advanced metering; resource planning, including potential generation projects; system improvements; investments in ANO 1 and 2; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital. Management provides more information on long-term debt and preferred stock maturities in Notes 5 and 6 to the financial statements.

As discussed above in “Capital Structure,” Entergy Arkansas routinely evaluates its ability to pay dividends to Entergy Corporation from its earnings. Provisions in Entergy Arkansas’s articles of incorporation relating to preferred

307

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


stock restrict the amount of retained earnings available for the payment of cash dividends or other distributions on its common and preferred stock.  

Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)

In September 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed an application seeking a finding from the APSC that Entergy Arkansas’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest. Entergy Arkansas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Arkansas’s modernized power grid. The filing included an estimate of implementation costs for AMI of $208 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, and Entergy Arkansas provided a cost benefit analysis showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce a nominal net benefit to customers of $406 million. Entergy Arkansas also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters, which was approximately $57 million at December 31, 2015, that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Arkansas proposed a 15-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. Deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018. Entergy Arkansas proposed to include the AMI deployment costs and the quantified benefits in future formula rate plan filings, and the 2018 costs were approved in the 2017 formula rate plan filing. In June 2017 the APSC staff and Arkansas Attorney General filed direct testimony. The APSC staff generally supported Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment conditioned on various recommendations. The Arkansas Attorney General’s consultant primarily recommended denial of Entergy Arkansas’s application but alternatively suggested recommendations in the event the APSC approves Entergy Arkansas’s proposal. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in June 2017, substantially accepting the APSC staff’s recommendations. In August 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement. In October 2017 the APSC issued an order finding that Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment is in the public interest and approving the settlement agreement subject to a minor modification. Entergy Arkansas expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized over 15 years. Entergy Arkansas has begun discussions with the other parties to implement the items in the settlement agreement including pre-pay and time of use programs.

Sources of Capital

Entergy Arkansas’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
debt or preferred stock issuances; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.

Entergy Arkansas may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt and preferred stock prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest and dividend rates are favorable.

All debt and common and preferred stock issuances by Entergy Arkansas require prior regulatory approval.  Preferred stock and debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in Entergy Arkansas’s corporate charters, bond indentures, and other agreements.  Entergy Arkansas has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.


308

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Entergy Arkansas’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
2017 2016 2015 2014
(In Thousands)
($166,137) ($51,232) ($52,742) $2,218

See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.

Entergy Arkansas has a credit facility in the amount of $150 million scheduled to expire in August 2022. Entergy Arkansas also has a $20 million credit facility scheduled to expire in April 2018.  The $150 million credit facility permits the issuance of letters of credit against $5 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, 2017, there were no cash borrowings and no letters of credit outstanding under the credit facilities. In addition, Entergy Arkansas is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO. As of December 31, 2017, a $1 million letter of credit was outstanding under Entergy Arkansas’s uncommitted letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the credit facilities.

The Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity has a credit facility in the amount of $80 million scheduled to expire in May 2019.  As of December 31, 2017, $50 million in letters of credit to support a like amount of commercial paper issued and $24.9 million in loans were outstanding under the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility.

Entergy Arkansas obtained authorizations from the FERC through October 2019 for short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $250 million at any time outstanding and borrowings by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s short-term borrowing limits. The long-term securities issuances of Entergy Arkansas are limited to amounts authorized by the APSC, and the current authorization extends through December 2018.

State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery

Retail Rates

2015 Base Rate Filing

In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing notified the APSC of Entergy Arkansas’s intent to implement a forward test year formula rate plan pursuant to Arkansas legislation passed in 2015, and requested a retail rate increase of $268.4 million, with a net increase in revenue of $167 million. The filing requested a 10.2% return on common equity. In September 2015 the APSC staff and intervenors filed direct testimony, with the APSC staff recommending a revenue requirement of $217.9 million and a 9.65% return on common equity. In December 2015, Entergy Arkansas, the APSC staff, and certain of the intervenors in the rate case filed with the APSC a joint motion for approval of a settlement of the case that proposed a retail rate increase of approximately $225 million with a net increase in revenue of approximately $133 million; an authorized return on common equity of 9.75%; and a formula rate plan tariff that provides a +/- 50 basis point band around the 9.75% allowed return on common equity. A significant portion of the rate increase is related to Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition in March 2016 of Union Power Station Power Block 2 for a base purchase price of $237 million. The settlement agreement also provided for amortization over a 10-year period of $7.7 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO post-Fukushima compliance and $9.9 million of previously-incurred costs related to ANO flood barrier compliance. A settlement hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that reduced the retail rate increase proposed in the settlement by $5 million. The settling parties agreed to the APSC modifications in February 2016. The new rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. In March 2016, Entergy Arkansas made a compliance filing regarding the

309

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


new rates that included an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. The interim base rate adjustment surcharge was designed to recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016.

2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2016 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing requested a $67.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. In October 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC revised formula rate plan attachments with an updated request for a $54.4 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors, as well as three additional adjustments identified as appropriate by Entergy Arkansas. In November 2016 a hearing was held and the APSC issued an order directing the parties to brief certain issues. In December 2016 the APSC approved the settlement agreement and the $54.4 million revenue requirement increase with approximately $25 million of the $54.4 million revenue requirement subject to possible future adjustment and refund to customers with interest. The APSC requested supplemental information for some of Entergy Arkansas’s requested nuclear expenditures. In December 2016 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan compliance tariff, and the rates became effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017. In April 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion consented to by all parties requesting that it be permitted to submit the supplemental information requested by the APSC in conjunction with its 2017 formula rate plan filing, which was subsequently made in July 2017 and is discussed below. In May 2017 the APSC approved the joint motion and proposal to review Entergy Arkansas’s supplemental information on a concurrent schedule with the 2017 formula rate plan filing. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. In December 2017 the APSC approved the settlement agreement and recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs.

2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2017 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2018 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth.  The filing projected a $129.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%.  Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint and the projected annual revenue requirement increase exceeded the four percent, resulting in a proposed increase for the 2017 formula rate plan of $70.9 million. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC revised formula rate plan attachments that projected a $126.2 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors. The revised formula rate plan filing included a proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase based on a revision to the four percent constraint calculation. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. In December 2017 the APSC approved the settlement agreement and the $71.1 million revenue requirement increase, as well as Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan compliance tariff, and the rates became effective with the first billing cycle of January 2018.

Internal Restructuring

In November 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer ofLLC holds substantially all of the assets, and operationshas assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Arkansas to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company.New Orleans, Inc. The restructuring is subject to regulatory review and approval by the APSC, the FERC, and the NRC. Entergy Arkansas also filedwas accounted for as a notice with the Missouri Public Service Commission in December 2017 out of an abundance of caution, althoughtransaction between entities under common control.

310

Entergy Arkansas Inc. and SubsidiariesInternal Restructuring
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Entergy Arkansas does not serve any retail customers in Missouri. If the APSC approves the restructuring by September 1, 2018, and the restructuring closes on or before December 1,In November 2018, Entergy Arkansas proposed in its application to credit retail customers $66 million over six years, beginning in 2019. In February 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed supplemental testimony reducing the proposed retail customer credits to $39.6 million over six years. If the APSC, the FERC, and the NRC approvals are obtained, Entergy Arkansas expects the restructuring will be consummated on or before December 1, 2018.
It is currently contemplated that Entergy Arkansas would undertakeundertook a multi-step restructuring, which would includeincluding the following:

Entergy Arkansas, would redeemInc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $32.7 million, which includes call premiums, plus accumulated and unpaid dividends, if any.million.
Entergy Arkansas, would convertInc. converted from an Arkansas corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Arkansas, will allocateInc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Arkansas Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Arkansas Power), and Entergy Arkansas Power will assumeassumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Arkansas, will remainInc. remained in existence and holdheld the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power.
Entergy Arkansas, will contributeInc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Arkansas Power will beis a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Arkansas, will changeInc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Property, Inc., and Entergy Arkansas Power will then changechanged its name to Entergy Arkansas, LLC.

Upon the completion of the restructuring, Entergy Arkansas, LLC will holdholds substantially all of the assets, and will have assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Arkansas.Arkansas, Inc. The transaction was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Mississippi Internal Restructuring

In November 2018, Entergy Mississippi undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy Mississippi, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock, at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $21.2 million.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. converted from a Mississippi corporation to a Texas corporation.
262

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Mississippi, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Mississippi Power and Light), and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Mississippi, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Mississippi, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Mississippi, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Enterprises, Inc., and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light then changed its name to Entergy Mississippi, LLC. Entergy Mississippi, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Mississippi, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants, located in the northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities revenues are primarily derived from sales of energy and generation capacity from these plants. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also provides operations and management services, including decommissioning-related services, to nuclear power plants owned by non-affiliated entities in the United States. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers.

See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.

Property

Nuclear Generating Stations

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership of the following nuclear power plants:
Power PlantMarketIn Service YearAcquiredLocationCapacity - Reactor TypeLicense Expiration Date
Indian Point 3 (a)NYISO1976Nov. 2000Buchanan, NY1,041 MW - Pressurized Water2025 (a)
Indian Point 2 (a)NYISO1974Sept. 2001Buchanan, NY1,028 MW - Pressurized Water2024 (a)
Palisades (b)MISO1971Apr. 2007Covert,
MI
811 MW - Pressurized Water2031 (b)

(a)Power operations ceased at the Indian Point 2 plant in April 2020. The fuel was permanently removed from the reactor vessel and placed in the spent fuel pool in May 2020. The Indian Point 3 plant is expected to cease operations on April 30, 2021. Entergy and Holtec jointly filed a license transfer application with the NRC in November 2019, requesting approval for the transfer of the Indian Point plants, along with their nuclear decommissioning trusts and decommissioning liabilities, from Entergy to Holtec. The NRC approved the license transfer application on November 23, 2020.
263

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

(b)The Palisades plant is expected to cease operations on May 31, 2022. There is a contract to sell the plant to Holtec subject to NRC and other regulatory approvals.

See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of two non-operating nuclear facilities, Big Rock Point in Michigan and Indian Point 1 in New York that were acquired when Entergy purchased the Palisades and Indian Point 2 nuclear plants, respectively. These facilities are in various stages of the decommissioning process. Both Big Rock Point and Indian Point 1 are under contract to be sold with their respective plants.

Non-nuclear Generating Stations

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, or interests in joint ventures that own, the following non-nuclear power plants:
PlantLocationOwnershipNet Owned Capacity (a)Type
Independence Unit 2;   842 MWNewark, AR14%    121 MW(b)Coal
RS Cogen;   425 MW (c)Lake Charles, LA50%213 MWGas/Steam
Nelson Unit 6;   550 MWWestlake, LA11%       60 MW(b)Coal

(a)“Net Owned Capacity” refers to the nameplate rating on the generating unit.
(b)The owned MW capacity is the portion of the plant capacity owned by Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  For a complete listing of Entergy’s jointly-owned generating stations, refer to “Jointly-Owned Generating Stations” in Note 1 to the financial statements.
(c)Indirectly owned through an interest in an unconsolidated joint venture. In December 2020, Entergy’s wholly-owned subsidiary with a direct interest in RS Cogen, LLC entered into a membership interest purchase agreement with a subsidiary of the other 50% equity partner to sell its 50% membership interest in the joint venture to the equity partner. The targeted closing date for the transaction is October 2022.

Independent System Operators

The Indian Point plants fall under the authority of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). The Palisades plant falls under the authority of the MISO. The primary purpose of NYISO and MISO is to direct the operations of the major generation and transmission facilities in their respective regions; ensure grid reliability; administer and monitor wholesale electricity markets; and plan for their respective region’s energy needs.

Energy and Capacity Sales

As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy in the day ahead or spot markets.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities also sells unforced capacity, which allows load-serving entities to meet specified reserve and related requirements placed on them by the ISOs in their respective areas.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward physical power contracts consist of contracts to sell energy only, contracts to sell capacity only, and bundled contracts in which it sells both capacity and energy.  While the terminology and payment mechanics vary in these contracts, each of these types of contracts requires Entergy Wholesale Commodities to deliver MWh of energy, make capacity available, or both.See “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for additional information regarding these contracts.

264

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

As part of the purchase of the Palisades plant in 2007, Entergy executed a 15-year PPA with the seller, Consumers Energy, for 100% of the plant’s output, excluding any future uprates. Under the purchased power agreement, Consumers Energy receives the value of any new environmental credits for the first ten years of the agreement. Palisades and Consumers Energy will share on a 50/50 basis the value of any new environmental credits for years 11 through 15 of the agreement. The environmental credits are defined as benefits from a change in law that causes capability of the plant as of the purchase date to become a tradable attribute (e.g., emission credit, renewable energy credit, environmental credit, “green” credit, etc.) or otherwise to have a market value. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on May 31, 2022 and transfer to Holtec thereafter.

Customers

Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ customers for the sale of both energy and capacity from its nuclear plants include retail power providers, utilities, electric power co-operatives, power trading organizations, and other power generation companies. These customers include Consumers Energy, the company from which Entergy purchased the Palisades plant, and NYISO and MISO. Substantially all the credit exposure associated with the planned energy output under contract for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants is with counterparties or their guarantors that have public investment grade credit ratings.

Competition

The NYISO market is highly competitive. Entergy Wholesale Commodities has numerous competitors in New York including generation companies affiliated with regulated utilities, other independent power producers, municipal and co-operative generators, owners of co-generation plants and wholesale power marketers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities is an independent power producer, which means it generates power for sale to third parties at day ahead or spot market prices to the extent that the power is not sold under a fixed price contract. Municipal and co-operative generators also generate power but use most of it to deliver power to their municipal or co-operative power customers. Owners of co-generation plants produce power primarily for their own consumption. Wholesale power marketers do not own generation; rather they buy power from generators or other market participants and resell it to retail providers or other market participants. Competition in the New York power market is affected by, among other factors, the amount of generation and transmission capacity in these markets. MISO does not have a centralized clearing capacity market, but load serving entities do meet most of their capacity needs through bilateral contracts and self-supply with a smaller portion coming through voluntary MISO auctions. Almost all of Palisades’ current output is contracted to Consumers Energy through May 2022. Entergy Wholesale Commodities does not expect to be materially affected by competition in the MISO market in the near term.

Seasonality

Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues and operating income are subject to fluctuations during the year due to seasonal factors, weather conditions, and contract pricing. When outdoor and cooling water temperatures are low, generally during colder months, Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants operate more efficiently, and consequently, generate more electricity. Many of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contracts provide for shaped pricing over the course of the year. As a result of these factors, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues are typically higher in the first and third quarters than in the second and fourth quarters.

Fuel Supply

Nuclear Fuel

See “Fuel Supply - Nuclear Fuel” in the Utility portion of Part I, Item 1 for a discussion of the nuclear fuel cycle and markets. Entergy Nuclear Fuels Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, is responsible for contracts to acquire nuclear materials, except for fuel fabrication, for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants,
265

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

while Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. acts as the agent for the purchase of nuclear fuel assembly fabrication services. All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and each of the nuclear power plant owners. The nuclear fuel supply portfolio for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment has been adjusted to reflect reduced overall requirements related to the planned permanent shutdowns of the Indian Point 3 and Palisades plants. Fuel procurement for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment was primarily limited to the requirements of the Palisades plant’s final refueling in 2020.

Other Business Activities

Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC (ENPM) was formed in 2005 to centralize the power marketing function for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants. Upon its formation, ENPM entered into long-term power purchase agreements with the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries that own nuclear power plants (generating subsidiaries). As part of a series of agreements, ENPM agreed to assume and/or otherwise service the existing power purchase agreements that were in effect between the generating subsidiaries and their customers. ENPM’s functions include origination of new energy and capacity transactions and generation scheduling.

Services provided by either Entergy Nuclear, Inc. or other Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries include engineering, operations and maintenance, fuel procurement, management and supervision, technical support and training, administrative support, and other managerial or technical services required to operate, maintain, and decommission nuclear electric power facilities.

TLG Services, a subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment, offers decommissioning, engineering, and related services to nuclear power plant owners.

Entergy provides plant operation support services for the 800 MW Cooper Nuclear Station located near Brownville, Nebraska. In 2010 an Entergy subsidiary signed an agreement to extend the management support services to Cooper Nuclear Station by 15 years, through January 2029.

Regulation of Entergy’s Business

Federal Power Act

The Federal Power Act provides the FERC the authority to regulate:

the transmission and wholesale sale of electric energy in interstate commerce;
the reliability of the high voltage interstate transmission system through reliability standards;
sale or acquisition of certain assets;
securities issuances;
the licensing of certain hydroelectric projects;
certain other activities, including accounting policies and practices of electric and gas utilities; and
changes in control of FERC jurisdictional entities or rate schedules.

The Federal Power Act gives the FERC jurisdiction over the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf capacity and energy provided to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans and over the rates charged by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana to unaffiliated wholesale customers. The FERC also regulates wholesale power sales between the Utility operating companies. In addition, the FERC regulates the MISO RTO, an independent entity that maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy, capacity, and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. FERC regulation of the MISO RTO includes regulation of the design and implementation of the wholesale markets administered by the MISO RTO, as well as the rates, terms, and conditions of open access transmission service over the member systems and the allocation of costs associated with transmission upgrades.
266

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Entergy Arkansas holds a FERC license that expires in 2053 for two hydroelectric projects totaling 70 MW of capacity.

State Regulation

Utility

Entergy Arkansas is subject to regulation by the APSC as to the following:

utility service;
utility service areas;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery rider;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
the acquisition, sale, or lease of any public utility plant or property constituting an operating unit or system;
certificates of convenience and necessity and certificates of environmental compatibility and public need, as applicable, for generating and transmission facilities;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering;
integrated resource planning;
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control; and
the issuance and sale of certain securities.

Additionally, Entergy Arkansas serves a limited number of retail customers in Tennessee. Pursuant to legislation enacted in Tennessee, Entergy Arkansas is subject to complaints before the Tennessee Regulatory Authority only if it fails to treat its retail customers in Tennessee in the same manner as its retail customers in Arkansas. Additionally, Entergy Arkansas maintains limited facilities in Missouri but does not provide retail electric service to customers in Missouri. Although Entergy Arkansas obtained a certificate with respect to its Missouri facilities, Entergy Arkansas is not subject to retail ratemaking or other regulatory jurisdiction in Missouri.

Entergy Louisiana’s electric and gas business is subject to regulation by the LPSC as to the following:

utility service;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment clause and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission projects;
certification of capacity acquisitions, both for owned capacity and purchase power contracts;
procurement process to acquire over 50 MW;
audits of the environmental adjustment charge, avoided cost payment to Qualifying Facilities, and energy efficiency rider;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.

Entergy Mississippi is subject to regulation by the MPSC as to the following:

utility service;
utility service areas;
267

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery mechanism;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of generating facilities and certain transmission projects;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers, acquisitions, and other changes of control.

Entergy Mississippi is also subject to regulation by the APSC as to the certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the Independence Station, which is located in Arkansas.

Entergy New Orleans is subject to regulation by the City Council as to the following:

utility service;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment charge and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
audit of the environmental adjustment charge;
certification of the construction or extension of any new plant, equipment, property, or facility that comprises more than 2% of the utility’s rate base;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering;
issuance and sale of certain securities; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.

To the extent authorized by governing legislation, Entergy Texas is subject to the original jurisdiction of the municipal authorities of a number of incorporated cities in Texas with appellate jurisdiction over such matters residing in the PUCT.  Entergy Texas is also subject to regulation by the PUCT as to the following:

retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates, and terms and conditions of service in unincorporated areas of its service territory, and in municipalities that have ceded jurisdiction to the PUCT;
fuel recovery, including reconciliations (audits) of the fuel adjustment charges;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission and generation projects;
utility service areas, including extensions into new areas;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers, sales/acquisitions/leases of plants over $10 million, sales of greater than 50% voting stock of utilities, and transfers of controlling interest in or operation of utilities.

268

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the operation of nuclear plants is heavily regulated by the NRC, which has broad power to impose licensing and safety-related requirements.  The NRC has broad authority to impose civil penalties or shut down a unit, or both, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, as owners of all or portions of ANO, River Bend and Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively, and Entergy Operations, as the licensee and operator of these units, are subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC. Entergy subsidiaries in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment are subject to the NRC’s jurisdiction as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, Palisades, and Big Rock Point.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

Spent Nuclear Fuel

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy Arkansas is the only one of the Utility operating companies that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and has a recorded liability as of December 31, 2020 of $192.0 million for the one-time fee. Entergy accepted assignment of the Pilgrim, FitzPatrick, Indian Point 3, Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2, Vermont Yankee, Palisades, and Big Rock Point spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE held by their previous owners. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the sale of the plant, completed in March 2017. The Vermont Yankee spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to NorthStar as part of the sale of the plant in January 2019. The Pilgrim spent fuel disposal contract was transferred to Holtec as part of the sale of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company in August 2019. The owners of these plants previous to Entergy have paid or retained liability for the fees for all generation prior to the purchase dates of those plants. The fees payable to the DOE may be adjusted in the future to assure full recovery.  Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense.  Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants.  Entergy’s total spent fuel fees to date, including the one-time fee liability of Entergy Arkansas, have surpassed $1.6 billion (exclusive of amounts relating to Entergy plants that were paid or are owed by prior owners of those plants).

The permanent spent fuel repository in the U.S. has been legislated to be Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing (the DOE filed the license application in June 2008) and, after the license is granted by the NRC, proceed with the repository construction and commencement of receipt of spent fuel. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. The DOE continues to delay meeting its obligation. Specific steps were taken to discontinue the Yucca Mountain project, including a motion to the NRC to withdraw the license application with prejudice and the establishment of a commission to develop recommendations for alternative spent fuel storage solutions. In August 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the NRC to continue with the Yucca Mountain license review, but only to the extent of funds previously appropriated by Congress for that purpose and not yet used. Although the NRC completed the safety evaluation report for the license review in 2015, the previously appropriated funds are not sufficient to complete the review, including required hearings. The government has taken no effective action to date related to the recommendations of the appointed spent fuel study commission. Accordingly, large uncertainty remains regarding the time frame under
269

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

which the DOE will begin to accept spent fuel from Entergy’s facilities for storage or disposal. As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at Entergy’s nuclear sites.

Following the defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014.

As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. These subsidiaries have been, and continue to be, involved in litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2018, 2019, and 2020 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries’ litigation with the DOE. Through 2020, Entergy’s subsidiaries won and collected on judgments against the government totaling approximately $800 million.

Pending DOE acceptance and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the owners of nuclear plants are providing their own spent fuel storage.  Storage capability additions using dry casks began operations at Palisades in 1993, at ANO in 1996, at River Bend in 2005, at Grand Gulf in 2006, at Indian Point in 2008, and at Waterford 3 in 2011.  These facilities will be expanded as needed.

Nuclear Plant Decommissioning

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for ANO, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively.  In addition, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for the portion of River Bend subject to retail rate regulation. The collections are deposited in trust funds that can only be used in accordance with NRC and other applicable regulatory requirements.  Entergy periodically reviews and updates the estimated decommissioning costs to reflect inflation and changes in regulatory requirements and technology, and then makes applications to the regulatory authorities to reflect, in rates, the changes in projected decommissioning costs.

In December 2018 the APSC ordered collections in rates for decommissioning ANO 2 and found that ANO 1’s decommissioning was adequately funded without additional collections. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a revised decommissioning cost recovery tariff for ANO indicating that both ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning trusts were adequately funded without further collections, and in December 2020, the APSC ordered zero collections for ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning.

In July 2010 the LPSC approved increased decommissioning collections for Waterford 3 and the Louisiana regulated share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls. This LPSC decision contemplated that the level of decommissioning collections could be revisited should the NRC grant license extensions for both Waterford 3 and River Bend. In July 2019, following the NRC approval of license extensions for Waterford 3 and River Bend, Entergy Louisiana made a filing with the LPSC seeking to adjust decommissioning and depreciation rates for those plants, including one proposed scenario that would adjust Louisiana-jurisdictional decommissioning collections to zero for both plants (including an offsetting increase in depreciation rates). Because of the ongoing public health emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying economic uncertainty, Entergy Louisiana determined that the relief sought in the filing was no longer appropriate, and in November 2020, filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the proceeding. Following that filing, in a December 2020 order, the LPSC dismissed the proceeding without prejudice.
270

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


In December 2010 the PUCT approved increased decommissioning collections for the Texas share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls.  In December 2018 the PUCT approved a settlement that eliminated River Bend decommissioning collections for the Texas jurisdictional share of the plant based on a determination by Entergy Texas that the existing decommissioning fund was adequate following license renewal.

In September 2016 the NRC issued a 20-year operating license renewal for Grand Gulf. In a 2017 filing at the FERC, System Energy stated that with the renewed operating license, Grand Gulf’s decommissioning trust was sufficiently funded, and proposed, among other things, to cease decommissioning collections for Grand Gulf effective October 1, 2017. The FERC accepted a settlement including the proposed decommissioning revenue requirement by letter order in August 2018.

Entergy currently believes its decommissioning funding will be sufficient for its nuclear plants subject to retail rate regulation, although decommissioning cost inflation and trust fund performance will ultimately determine the adequacy of the funding amounts.

In January 2019, Entergy sold 100% of the membership interest in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to a subsidiary of NorthStar. As a result of the sale, NorthStar assumed ownership of Vermont Yankee and its decommissioning and site restoration trusts, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of Vermont Yankee decommissioning costs and see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the NorthStar transaction.

In August 2019, Entergy sold 100% of the equity interests in Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, LLC to a subsidiary of Holtec International. As a result of the sale, Holtec assumed ownership of Pilgrim and its decommissioning trust, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale.

For the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants purchased in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust funds and the decommissioning liabilities with the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume each of the decommissioning liabilities provided that it assigns the corresponding decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to the Entergy subsidiaries.  In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy, which was completed in January 2017. In March 2017, Entergy sold the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon, and as part of the transaction, the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund, along with the decommissioning obligation for that plant, was transferred to Exelon. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the transaction. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the FitzPatrick sale.

In March 2020 filings with the NRC were made reporting on decommissioning funding for all of Entergy subsidiaries’ nuclear plants.  Those reports showed that decommissioning funding for each of the nuclear plants met the NRC’s financial assurance requirements.

Additional information with respect to Entergy’s decommissioning costs and decommissioning trust funds is found in Note 9 and Note 16 to the financial statements.

Price-Anderson Act

The Price-Anderson Act requires that reactor licensees purchase and maintain the maximum amount of nuclear liability insurance available and participate in an industry assessment program called Secondary Financial Protection in order to protect the public in the event of a nuclear power plant accident.  The costs of this insurance
271

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

are borne by the nuclear power industry.  Congress amended and renewed the Price-Anderson Act in 2005 for a term through 2025.  The Price-Anderson Act limits the contingent liability for a single nuclear incident to a maximum assessment of approximately $137.6 million per reactor (with 97 nuclear industry reactors currently participating).  In the case of a nuclear event in which Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, or an Entergy Wholesale Commodities company is liable, protection is afforded through a combination of private insurance and the Secondary Financial Protection program. In addition to this, insurance for property damage, costs of replacement power, and other risks relating to nuclear generating units is also purchased.  The Price-Anderson Act and insurance applicable to the nuclear programs of Entergy are discussed in more detail in Note 8 to the financial statements.

NRC Reactor Oversight Process

The NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process is a program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response. The NRC evaluates plant performance by analyzing two distinct inputs: inspection findings resulting from the NRC’s inspection program and performance indicators reported by the licensee. The evaluations result in the placement of each plant in one of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix columns: “licensee response column,” or Column 1, “regulatory response column,” or Column 2, “degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 3, and “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4. Plants in Column 1 are subject to normal NRC inspection activities. Plants in Column 2, Column 3, or Column 4 are subject to progressively increasing levels of inspection by the NRC with, in general, progressively increasing levels of associated costs. The nuclear generating plants owned and operated by Entergy’s Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses are currently in Column 1, except for Grand Gulf, which is currently in Column 2.

In November 2020 the NRC placed Grand Gulf in Column 2 based on the incidence of three unplanned plant scrams during the second and third quarters of 2020.Two of the scram events related to new turbine control system components that failed, and a third related to a feedwater valve positioner that failed, all of which had been replaced in a refueling outage that ended in May 2020. The NRC plans to conduct a supplemental inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 2. As a consequence of two additional Grand Gulf scrams during the fourth quarter 2020, System Energy expects Grand Gulf to be placed into NRC Column 3 based on plant performance indicators for the four quarters ended December 31, 2020. This will involve an additional supplemental NRC inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 3.

Environmental Regulation

Entergy’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.  Management believes that Entergy’s businesses are in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted below.  Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance requirements and costs cannot be precisely estimated.  Except to the extent discussed below, at this time compliance with federal, state, and local provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise protecting the environment, is incorporated into the routine cost structure of Entergy’s businesses and is not expected to have a material effect on their competitive position, results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

272

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Clean Air Act and Subsequent Amendments

The Clean Air Act and its amendments establish several programs that currently or in the future may affect Entergy’s fossil-fueled generation facilities and, to a lesser extent, certain operations at nuclear and other facilities.  Individual states also operate similar independent state programs or delegated federal programs that may include requirements more stringent than federal regulatory requirements.  These programs include:

New source review and preconstruction permits for new sources of criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and significant modifications to existing facilities;
Acid rain program for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx);
Nonattainment area programs for control of criteria air pollutants, which could include fee assessments for air pollutant emission sources under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act if attainment is not reached in a timely manner;
Hazardous air pollutant emissions reduction programs;
Interstate Air Transport;
Operating permit programs and enforcement of these and other Clean Air Act programs;
Regional Haze programs; and
New and existing source standards for greenhouse gas and other air emissions.

New Source Review (NSR)

Preconstruction permits are required for new facilities and for existing facilities that undergo a modification that results in a significant net emissions increase and is not classified as routine repair, maintenance, or replacement.  Units that undergo certain non-routine modifications must obtain a permit modification and may be required to install additional air pollution control technologies. In December 2020 the EPA amended the NSR regulations to clarify when a physical change or change in the method of operation will constitute such a modification. Entergy has an established process for identifying modifications requiring additional permitting approval and is monitoring the regulations and associated guidance provided by the states and the federal government with regard to the determination of routine repair, maintenance, and replacement.  Several years ago, however, the EPA implemented an enforcement initiative, aimed primarily at coal plants, to identify modifications that it does not consider routine for which the unit did not obtain a modified permit.  Various courts and the EPA have been inconsistent in their judgments regarding modifications that are considered routine and on other legal issues that affect this program.

In February 2011, Entergy received a request from the EPA for several categories of information concerning capital and maintenance projects at the White Bluff and Independence facilities, both located in Arkansas, in order to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act, including NSR requirements and air permits issued by the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). In August 2011, Entergy’s Nelson facility, located in Louisiana, received a similar request for information from the EPA. In September 2015 an additional request for similar information was received for the White Bluff facility. Entergy responded to all requests. None of these EPA requests for information alleged that the facilities were in violation of law.

In January and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Independence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. In November 2018, following extensive negotiations, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Power entered a proposed settlement resolving those claims as well as other issues facing Entergy Arkansas’s fossil generation plants. The settlement, which formally resolves a complaint filed by the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In October 2019 the District Court requested supplemental briefing on several issues to be resolved prior to addressing the motion to approve the
273

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

settlement; that briefing was completed in May 2020. For further information about the settlement, see “Regional Haze” discussed below.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide, and requires periodic review of those standards. When an area fails to meet an ambient standard, it is considered to be in nonattainment and is classified as “marginal,” “moderate,” “serious,” or “severe.” When an area fails to meet the ambient air standard, the EPA requires state regulatory authorities to prepare state implementation plans meant to cause progress toward bringing the area into attainment with applicable standards.

Ozone Nonattainment

Entergy Texas operates two fossil-fueled generating facilities (Lewis Creek and Montgomery County Power Station) in a geographic area that is not in attainment with the applicable NAAQS for ozone.  The ozone nonattainment area that affects Entergy Texas is the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area.  Both Lewis Creek and the Montgomery County Power Station hold all necessary permits for construction and operation and comply with applicable air quality program regulations. Measures enacted to return the area to ozone attainment could make these program regulations more stringent. Entergy will continue to work with state environmental agencies on appropriate methods for assessing attainment and nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS.

Potential SO2Nonattainment

The EPA issued a final rule in June 2010 adopting an SO2 1-hour national ambient air quality standard of 75 parts per billion.  In Entergy’s utility service territory, only St. Bernard Parish and Evangeline Parish in Louisiana are designated as nonattainment. In August 2017 the EPA issued a letter indicating that East Baton Rouge and St. Charles parishes would be designated by December 31, 2020, as monitors were installed to determine compliance. In December 2020 the EPA designated East Baton Rouge, St. Charles, St. James, and West Baton Rouge parishes in Louisiana as attainment/unclassifiable, and, in Texas, Jefferson County as attainment/unclassifiable and Orange County as unclassifiable. Challenges to these final designations must be filed within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register. Entergy continues to monitor this situation.

Hazardous Air Pollutants

The EPA released the final Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule in December 2011, which had a compliance date, with a widely granted one-year extension, of April 2016. The required controls have been installed and are operational at all affected Entergy units. In May 2020 the EPA finalized a rule that finds that it is not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants from electric steam generating units under the provisions of section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act. This is a reversal of the EPA’s previous finding requiring such regulation. The final appropriate and necessary finding does not revise the underlying MATS rule. Several lawsuits have been filed challenging the appropriate and necessary finding. Entergy will continue to monitor this situation.

Cross-State Air Pollution

In March 2005 the EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was intended to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from electric generation plants in order to improve air quality in twenty-nine eastern states. The rule required a combination of capital investment to install pollution control equipment and increased operating costs through the purchase of emission allowances. Entergy began implementation in 2007, including installation of controls at several facilities and the development of an emission allowance procurement strategy.

274

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Based on several court challenges, CAIR and its subsequent versions, now known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), have been remanded to and modified by the EPA on multiple occasions. In September 2016 the EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Starting in 2017 the final rule requires reductions in summer nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Several states, including Arkansas and Texas, filed a challenge to the Update Rule. In September 2019 the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA’s underlying approach to the Update Rule, but determined that it was inconsistent with the Clean Air Act because it failed to include deadlines consistent with downwind states’ deadlines for attainment. The court remanded the rule to the EPA for further consideration, but did not vacate so the rule remains in effect pending the EPA’s further review. In October 2020 the EPA issued its proposal intended to address the D.C. Circuit’s remand. The draft rule proposes to finalize interstate transport obligations for 21 states. For nine states, including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas, the EPA proposes that additional emission reductions are not necessary. For 12 states, however, including Louisiana, the EPA proposes additional emission reductions through proposed reductions in the number of NOx emission allowances allocated to each state. Entergy, through its various trade associations, filed comments on the proposal and will continue to monitor the rulemaking and its potential impact on its facilities in Louisiana. If the October 2020 proposal is finalized, ozone season NOx emissions may become more expensive in Louisiana.

Regional Haze

In June 2005 the EPA issued its final Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) regulations that potentially could result in a requirement to install SO2 and NOx pollution control technology as Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART) to continue operating certain of Entergy’s fossil generation units.  The rule leaves certain CAVR determinations to the states.

In Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) prepared a state implementation plan (SIP) for Arkansas facilities to implement its obligations under the CAVR.   In April 2012 the EPA finalized a decision addressing the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, in which it disapproved a large portion of the Arkansas plan, including the emission limits for NOx and SO2 at White Bluff.  In April 2015 the EPA published a proposed federal implementation plan (FIP) for Arkansas, taking comment on requiring installation of scrubbers and low NOx burners to continue operating both units at the White Bluff plant and both units at the Independence plant and NOx controls to continue operating the Lake Catherine plant. Entergy filed comments by the deadline in August 2015. Among other comments, including opposition to the EPA’s proposed controls on the Independence units, Entergy proposed to meet more stringent SO2 and NOx limits at both White Bluff and Independence within three years of the effective date of the final FIP and to cease the use of coal at the White Bluff units at a later date.

In September 2016 the EPA published the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP. In most respects, the EPA finalized its original proposal but shortened the time for compliance for installation of the NOx controls. The FIP required an emission limitation consistent with SO2 scrubbers at both White Bluff and Independence by October 2021 and NOx controls by April 2018. The EPA declined to adopt Entergy’s proposals related to ceasing coal use as an alternative to SO2 scrubbers for White Bluff SO2 BART. In November 2016, Entergy and other interested parties, including the State of Arkansas, filed petitions for administrative reconsideration and stay at the EPA as well as petitions for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit granted the stay pending settlement discussions and pending the State’s development of a SIP that, if approved by the EPA, would replace the FIP. The state had proposed its replacement SIP in two parts: Part I considers NOx requirements, and Part II considers SO2 requirements. The EPA approved the Part I NOx SIP in January 2018. The Part I SIP requires that Entergy address NOx impacts on visibility via compliance with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ozone-season emission trading program. Arkansas has finalized a Part II SIP which has been approved by the EPA but is currently pending a state court appeal. That appeal has been stayed pending the outcome of a federal court case, which may resolve many of the issues on appeal. The final Part II SIP requires that Entergy achieve SO2 emission reductions via the use of low-sulfur coal at both White Bluff and Independence within three years. The
275

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Part II SIP also requires that Entergy cease to use coal at White Bluff by December 31, 2028 and notes the current planning assumption that Entergy’s Independence units will cease to use coal by December 31, 2030.

In January and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Independence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. In November 2018, following extensive negotiations, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Power entered a proposed settlement resolving those claims and reducing the risk that Entergy Arkansas, as operator of Independence and White Bluff, might be compelled under the Clean Air Act’s regional haze program to install costly emissions control technologies. Consistent with the terms of the settlement and in many cases also the Part II SIP, Entergy Arkansas, along with co-owners, will begin using only low-sulfur coal at Independence and White Bluff by mid-2021; cease to use coal at White Bluff and Independence by the end of 2028 and 2030, respectively; cease operation of the remaining gas unit at Lake Catherine by the end of 2027; reserve the option to develop new generating sources at each plant site; and commit to install or propose to regulators at least 800 MWs of renewable generation by the end of 2027, with at least half installed or proposed by the end of 2022 (which includes two existing Entergy Arkansas projects) and with all qualifying co-owner projects counting toward satisfaction of the obligation. Under the settlement, the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association also waive certain potential existing claims under federal and state environmental law with respect to specified generating plants. The settlement, which formally resolves a complaint filed by the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The EPA, which is allowed to comment on such a settlement agreement, has stated that it has no objections to the settlement. In November 2020 the court denied motions by the Arkansas Attorney General and the Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition to intervene and to stay the proceedings. The proposed intervenors did not appeal the ruling. Still pending before the court is a motion by the plaintiffs to approve the settlement, in support of which Entergy made a filing. The Arkansas Attorney General also filed an application before the APSC in December 2018 seeking an investigation into the effects of the settlement. The Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition filed to support the Arkansas Attorney General’s application, and Entergy Arkansas filed a motion to dismiss it. The application remains pending before the APSC. In October 2019 the District Court requested supplemental briefing on several issues prior to addressing the motion to approve the settlement; that briefing concluded in May 2020.

In Louisiana, Entergy has worked with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the EPA to revise the Louisiana SIP for regional haze, which had been disapproved in part in 2012. The LDEQ submitted a revised SIP in February 2017. In May 2017 the EPA proposed to approve a majority of the revisions. In September 2017 the EPA issued a proposed SIP approval for the Nelson plant, requiring an emission limitation consistent with the use of low-sulfur coal, with a compliance date of January 22, 2021. The EPA issued final approval in December 2017. The EPA approval was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In October 2019 the Fifth Circuit affirmed the EPA’s SIP approval. A petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs was denied by the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiffs did not petition for further review by the Supreme Court.

The second planning period (2018-2028) for the regional haze program requires states to examine sources for impacts on visibility and to prepare SIPs by 2021. Entergy received information collection requests from Arkansas and Louisiana requesting an evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of various NOx and SO2 control technologies for Independence, Nelson 6, and Ninemile. Responses to the information requests have been submitted to the respective state agencies.

New and Existing Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In July 2019 the EPA released the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE), which applies only to existing coal-fired electric generating units. The ACE determines that heat rate improvements are the best system of emission reductions and lists six candidate technologies for consideration by states at each coal unit. The rule and associated rulemakings by the EPA replace the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which established
276

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

national emissions performance rates for existing fossil-fuel fired steam electric generating units and combustion turbines. The ACE rule provides states discretion in determining how the best system for emission reductions applies to individual units, including through the consideration of technical feasibility and the remaining useful life of the facility. The ADEQ and the LDEQ have issued information collection requests to Entergy facilities to help the states collect the information needed to determine the best system of emission reductions for each facility. Entergy responded to the requests and will continue to monitor litigation challenging the rule. In January 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated ACE. The court held that ACE relied on an incorrect interpretation of the Clean Air Act that the statute expressly forecloses emission reduction approaches, such as emissions trading and generating shifting, that cannot be applied at and to the individual source. The court remanded ACE to the EPA for further consideration and also vacated the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The vacatur will not be effective until the court issues its mandate which is being held until after disposition of any petitions for rehearing. Entergy is currently reviewing the court’s opinion.

In 2018 the EPA proposed a revision to the new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions that primarily impacts new coal units and, therefore, should not impact Entergy. In January 2021 the EPA finalized a pollutant-specific contribution finding for greenhouse gas emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed electric generating units. The rule establishes a three percent threshold for determining when a pollutant significantly contributes to air pollution and reaffirms the EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act Section 111(b) requires the EPA to make pollutant-specific significant contribution findings before promulgation of a new source performance standard. The EPA did not, however, finalize the new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions and intends to address the 2018 proposal in a future action.

Potential Legislative, Regulatory, and Judicial Developments

In addition to the specific instances described above, there are a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives concerning air emissions, as well as other media, that are under consideration at the federal, state, and local level.  Because of the nature of Entergy’s business, the imposition of any of these initiatives could affect Entergy’s operations.  Entergy continues to monitor these initiatives and activities in order to analyze their potential operational and cost implications.  These initiatives include:

designation by the EPA and state environmental agencies of areas that are not in attainment with national ambient air quality standards;
introduction of bills in Congress and development of regulations by the EPA proposing further limits on NOx, SO2, mercury, and carbon dioxide and other air emissions.  New legislation or regulations applicable to stationary sources could take the form of market-based cap-and-trade programs, direct requirements for the installation of air emission controls onto air emission sources, or other or combined regulatory programs;
efforts in Congress or at the EPA to establish a federal carbon dioxide emission tax, control structure, or unit performance standards;
revisions to the estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon and its use for regulatory impact analysis of federal laws and regulations;
implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative by several states in the northeastern United States and similar actions in other regions of the United States;
efforts on the local, state, and federal level to codify renewable portfolio standards, clean energy standards, or a similar mechanism requiring utilities to produce or purchase a certain percentage of their power from defined renewable energy sources or energy sources with lower emissions;
efforts to develop more stringent state water quality standards, effluent limitations for Entergy’s industry sector, stormwater runoff control regulations, and cooling water intake structure requirements;
efforts to restrict the previously-approved continued use of oil-filled equipment containing certain levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
efforts by certain external groups to encourage reporting and disclosure of environmental, social, and governance risk;
277

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

the listing of additional species as threatened or endangered, the protection of critical habitat for these species, and developments in the legal protection of eagles and migratory birds;
the regulation of the management, disposal, and beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals; and
the regulation of the management and disposal and recycling of equipment associated with renewable and clean energy sources such as used solar panels, wind turbine blades, hydrogen usage, or battery storage.

Entergy continues to support national legislation that would increase planning certainty for electric utilities while addressing carbon dioxide emissions in an economy-wide, responsible, and flexible manner.  By virtue of its proportionally large investment in low-emitting generation technologies, Entergy has a low overall carbon dioxide emission “intensity,” or rate of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt-hour of electricity generated.  In anticipation of the imposition of carbon dioxide emission limits on the electric industry, Entergy initiated actions designed to reduce its exposure to potential new governmental requirements related to carbon dioxide emissions.  These voluntary actions included a formal program to stabilize owned power plant carbon dioxide emissions at 2000 levels through 2005, and Entergy succeeded in reducing emissions below 2000 levels. In 2006, Entergy started including emissions from controllable power purchases in addition to its ownership share of generation and established a second formal voluntary program to stabilize power plant carbon dioxide emissions and emissions from controllable power purchases, cumulatively over the period, at 20% below 2000 levels through 2010.  In 2011, Entergy extended this commitment through 2020.  In 2020, Entergy succeeded in achieving its initial climate commitment to reduce carbon dioxide cumulative emissions by 20% from 2000 levels. Total carbon dioxide emissions representing Entergy’s ownership share of power plants and controllable power purchases in the United States were approximately 39.1 million tons in 2020 and 40.7 million tons in 2019. Since its original commitment in 2001, Entergy’s cumulative emissions are approximately 7.6% below its 2020 goal.

Entergy voluntarily conducted a climate scenario analysis and published a comprehensive report in March 2019. The report follows the framework and recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Disclosures, describing climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Scenario analyses resulted in Entergy developing and publishing a new goal of reducing the Utility’s emission rate by 50 percent from 2000 levels by 2030. In September 2020, Entergy committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, while continuing its commitment to grid reliability and affordability for customers. In December 2020, Entergy published a report regarding this long-term commitment that describes its approach and technology point-of-view. Technology research and development, innovation, and advancement are critical to Entergy’s ability to meet this climate commitment.

Entergy participates in the M.J. Bradley & Associates’ Annual Benchmarking Air Emissions Report, an annual analysis of the 100 largest U.S. electric power producers. The report is available on the M.J. Bradley website. Entergy’s annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory is also third-party verified, and that certification is made available on the American Carbon Registry website. Entergy participates annually in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and in 2020 was listed on the North American Index. Entergy has been listed on the World or North American Index, or both, for nineteen consecutive years. Entergy also participated in the 2020 CDP and CDP Water evaluations, receiving a ‘B’ for both responses.

Clean Water Act

The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act) provide the statutory basis for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program, section 402, and the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States.  The Clean Water Act requires virtually all discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to be permitted.  Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act regulates cooling water intake structures, section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a water quality certification from the state in support of certain federal actions and approvals, and section 404 regulates the dredge and fill of waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands.

278

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines

The 2015 Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) rule required, among other things, that there be no discharge of bottom ash transport water. In October 2020 the EPA issued its final rule revision on bottom ash transport water allowing the discharge of up to 10% system volume for certain purge waters, including storm events and non-routine operations. The final rule requires compliance as soon as possible beginning October 31, 2021, but no later than December 31, 2025. Several challenges to the final rule have been filed. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously vacated and remanded the provisions of the rule related to legacy wastewater and leachate, which the EPA plans to address in a separate rulemaking. Despite the final rule and pending challenges, Entergy is implementing projects at its White Bluff and Independence plants to convert to zero-discharge systems to comply with the ELG rule and the coal combustion residuals restrictions on impoundments. Additionally, the Nelson Unit 6 facility is implementing operational and maintenance measures to minimize the potential for discharge of bottom ash transport water from the existing bottom ash handling system at the site, and is reviewing the effectiveness of these changes for compliance with the requirements of the October 2020 final rule.

Federal Jurisdiction of Waters of the United States

In February 2019 the EPA published its proposed revised definition of Waters of the United States, which proposes to narrow the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, as compared to a 2015 definition which had been stayed by several federal courts. The final rule was released in January 2020 and effective in June 2020. In October 2019 the EPA repealed the 2015 rule and re-codified the pre-existing regulations. That rule was effective late December 2019. Numerous challenges have been filed against both rules.

Groundwater at Certain Nuclear Sites

The NRC requires nuclear power plants to monitor and report regularly the presence of radioactive material in the environment.  Entergy joined other nuclear utilities and the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2006 to develop a voluntary groundwater monitoring and protection program.  This initiative began after detection of very low levels of radioactive material, primarily tritium, in groundwater at several plants in the United States.  Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that occurs naturally and is also a byproduct of nuclear plant operations.  In addition to tritium, other radionuclides have been found in site groundwater at nuclear plants.

As part of the groundwater monitoring and protection program, Entergy has: (1) performed reviews of plant groundwater characteristics (hydrology) and historical records of past events on site that may have potentially impacted groundwater; (2) implemented fleet procedures on how to handle events that could impact groundwater; and (3) installed groundwater monitoring wells and began periodic sampling.  The program also includes protocols for notifying local officials if contamination is found.  To date, radionuclides such as tritium have been detected at Arkansas Nuclear One, Indian Point, Palisades, Grand Gulf, and River Bend.  Each of these sites has installed groundwater monitoring wells and implemented a program for testing groundwater at the sites for the presence of tritium and other radionuclides.  Based on current information, the concentrations and locations of radionuclides detected at these plants pose no threat to public health or safety, but each site continues to evaluate the results from its groundwater monitoring program.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), authorizes the EPA to mandate clean-up by, or to collect reimbursement of clean-up costs from, owners or operators of sites at which hazardous substances may be or have been released.  Certain private parties also may use CERCLA to recover response costs.  Parties that transported hazardous substances to these sites or arranged for the disposal of the substances are also deemed liable by CERCLA.  CERCLA has been interpreted to impose strict, joint, and several liability on responsible parties.  Many states have adopted programs similar to CERCLA.  Entergy subsidiaries in the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses have sent waste materials to various
279

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

disposal sites over the years, and releases have occurred at Entergy facilities including nuclear facilities that have been or will be sold to decommissioning companies.  In addition, environmental laws now regulate certain of Entergy’s operating procedures and maintenance practices that historically were not subject to regulation.  Some disposal sites used by Entergy subsidiaries have been the subject of governmental action under CERCLA or similar state programs, resulting in site clean-up activities.  Entergy subsidiaries have participated to various degrees in accordance with their respective potential liabilities in such site clean-ups and have developed experience with clean-up costs.  The affected Entergy subsidiaries have established provisions for the liabilities for such environmental clean-up and restoration activities.  Details of potentially material CERCLA and similar state program liabilities are discussed in the “Other Environmental Matters” section below.

Coal Combustion Residuals

In June 2010 the EPA issued a proposed rule on coal combustion residuals (CCRs) that contained two primary regulatory options: (1) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or received (including stored) in surface impoundments as so-called “special wastes” under the hazardous waste program of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C; or (2) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments as non-hazardous wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA.  Under both options, CCRs that are beneficially reused in certain processes would remain excluded from hazardous waste regulation. In April 2015 the EPA published the final CCR rule with the material being regulated under the second scenario presented above - as non-hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA Subtitle D.

The final regulations create new compliance requirements including modified storage, new notification and reporting practices, product disposal considerations, and CCR unit closure criteria.  Entergy believes that on-site disposal options will be available at its facilities, to the extent needed for CCR that cannot be transferred for beneficial reuse. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy has recorded asset retirement obligations related to CCR management of $20.1 million.

In December 2016 the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) was signed into law, which authorizes states to regulate coal ash rather than leaving primary enforcement to citizen suit actions. States may submit to the EPA proposals for a permit program.

Pursuant to the EPA Rule, Entergy operates groundwater monitoring systems surrounding its coal combustion residual landfills located at White Bluff, Independence, and Nelson. Monitoring to date has detected concentrations of certain listed constituents in the area, but has not indicated that these constituents originated at the active landfill cells. Reporting has occurred as required, and detection monitoring will continue as the rule requires. In late-2017, Entergy determined that certain in-ground wastewater treatment system recycle ponds at its White Bluff and Independence facilities require management under the new EPA regulations. Consequently, in order to move away from using the recycle ponds, White Bluff and Independence each have installed a new permanent bottom ash handling system that does not fall under the CCR rule. As of November 2020, both sites are operating the new system and no longer are sending waste to the recycle ponds. Each site has commenced closure of one of its two recycle ponds, with the remaining pond being held in reserve during initial operation of the new bottom ash handling system. Closure of the remaining recycle pond at each site will commence as soon as possible, but no later than April 11, 2021, which is the deadline under the finalized CCR rule to commence closure of any unlined recycle ponds. Any potential requirements for corrective action or operational changes under the new CCR rule continue to be assessed. Notably, ongoing litigation has resulted in the EPA’s continuing review of the rule. Consequently, the nature and cost of additional corrective action requirements may depend, in part, on the outcome of the EPA’s review.

280

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Environmental Matters

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas

Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, currently is involved in the second phase of the remedial investigation of the Lake Charles Service Center site, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  A manufactured gas plant (MGP) is believed to have operated at this site from approximately 1916 to 1931.  Coal tar, a by-product of the distillation process employed at MGPs, apparently was routed to a portion of the property for disposal.  The same area also has been used as a landfill.  In 1999, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. signed a second administrative consent order with the EPA to perform a removal action at the site.  Removal actions addressed contaminated source material, soil, and sediment and included capping certain soil on and off-site. In 2002 approximately 7,400 tons of contaminated soil and debris were excavated and disposed of from an area within the service center.  In 2003 a cap was constructed over the remedial area to prevent the migration of contamination to the surface.  In August 2005 an administrative order was issued by the EPA requiring that a 10-year groundwater study be conducted at this site.  The groundwater monitoring study commenced in January 2006.  The EPA released the second Five Year Review in 2015. In that review, the EPA indicated that the remediation technique was insufficient and that Entergy would need to utilize other remediation technologies on the site. In July 2015, Entergy submitted a Focused Feasibility Study to the EPA outlining the potential remedies and suggesting installation of the new remedial method, a waterloo barrier. The estimated cost for this remedy is approximately $2 million, to be allocated between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas.  In early 2017 the EPA indicated that the waterloo barrier may not be necessary and requested revisions to the Focused Feasibility Study. The EPA released the third Five Year Review in late-2019 confirming that a new remedial method is not necessary but requiring continuation of the current groundwater monitoring. The site’s remedy includes monitored natural attenuation of groundwater, and institutional controls to restrict groundwater and land use. The EPA has determined that no additional actions are needed for the remedy to be protective over the long-term, and the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) notified Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas that the TCEQ believes those entities are potentially responsible parties (PRPs) concerning contamination existing at the San Angelo Electric Service Company (SESCO) facility in San Angelo, Texas.  The facility operated as a transformer repair and scrapping facility from the 1930s until 2003.  Both soil and groundwater contamination existed at the site.  Entergy subsidiaries sent transformers to this facility.  Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy Texas responded to an information request from the TCEQ.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas joined a group of PRPs responding to site conditions in cooperation with the State of Texas, creating cost allocation models based on review of SESCO documents and employee interviews, and investigating contribution actions against other PRPs.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas have agreed to contribute to the remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at the site in a measure proportionate to those companies’ involvement at the site.  Current estimates, although variable depending on ultimate remediation design and performance, indicate that Entergy’s total share of remediation costs likely will be approximately $1.5 million to $2 million.  Groundwater monitoring wells at the site were plugged and abandoned in December 2019 following receipt of a certificate of completion issued by the TCEQ. Site decommissioning activities are complete and final disposition of the property will be determined at a later time.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Texas

The EPA notified Entergy that the EPA believes Entergy is a PRP concerning PCB contamination at the F.J. Doyle Salvage facility in Leonard, Texas. The facility operated as a scrap salvage business during the 1970s to the 1990s. In May 2018 the EPA investigated the site surface and sub-surface soils and, in November 2018 the EPA conducted a removal action, including disposal of PCB contaminated soils. Entergy responded to the EPA’s information requests in May and July 2019. In November 2020 the EPA sent Entergy and other PRPs a demand
281

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

letter seeking reimbursement for response costs totaling $4 million expended at the site. The demand letter is being evaluated and liability and PRP allocation of response costs are yet to be determined.

Entergy Texas

In December 2016 a transformer inside the Hartburg, Texas Substation had an internal fault resulting in a release of approximately 15,000 gallons of non-PCB mineral oil. Cleanup ensued immediately; however, rain caused much of the oil to spread across the substation yard and into a nearby wetland. The TCEQ and the National Response Center were immediately notified, and the TCEQ responded to the site approximately two hours after the cleanup was initiated. The remediation liability is estimated at $2.2 million; however, this number could fluctuate depending on the remediation extent and wetland mitigation requirements. In July 2017, Entergy entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program with the TCEQ. In November 2017, additional soil sampling was completed in the wetland area and, in February 2018, a site summary report of findings was submitted to the TCEQ. The TCEQ responded in June 2018 and requested an ecological exclusion criteria checklist/Tier II screening-level ecological risk assessment, and additional site assessment, additional soil samples, groundwater samples, and some additional diagrams and maps. In October 2018, Entergy submitted the requested information to the TCEQ. In January 2019 the TCEQ responded with another request for information. In March 2019, Entergy submitted the requested information to the TCEQ. In August 2019 the TCEQ responded with a request for additional information including an Affected Property Assessment Report (APAR) and water well survey. The TCEQ has agreed that the necessity of the water well survey is dependent on the results of the groundwater resampling that will occur. Groundwater sampling was completed in December 2019 and results were submitted to the TCEQ for review. Based on the groundwater sampling results, the TCEQ confirmed in February 2020 that a water well survey is not necessary and requested the APAR and an Ecological Risk Assessment by August 2020. Due to COVID-19 delays, the TCEQ extended the APAR and Ecological Risk Assessment submittal dates to December 2020, which Entergy timely met.

Litigation

Entergy uses legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against it, but certain states in which Entergy operates have proven to be unusually litigious environments.  Judges and juries in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases.  The litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk to Entergy.

Asbestos Litigation(Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of this litigation.

Employment and Labor-related Proceedings (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of these proceedings.

282

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Human Capital

Employees

Employees are an integral part of Entergy’s commitment to serving customers.  As of December 31, 2020, Entergy subsidiaries employed 13,400 people.

Utility:
Entergy Arkansas1,244 
Entergy Louisiana1,654 
Entergy Mississippi750 
Entergy New Orleans303 
Entergy Texas658 
System Energy— 
Entergy Operations3,529 
Entergy Services3,859 
Entergy Nuclear Operations1,356 
Other subsidiaries47 
Total Entergy13,400 

Approximately 3,900 employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Utility Workers Union of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Government Security Officers of America, and the International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America.

Below is the breakdown of Entergy’s employees by gender and race/ethnicity:

Gender (%)20202019
Female2120
Male7980
100100


Race/Ethnicity (%)20202019
White7879
Black/African American1515
Hispanic/Latino32
Asian22
Other22
100100

Entergy’s Approach to Human Resources

Entergy’s people and culture enable its success; that is why acquiring, retaining, and developing talent are important components of Entergy’s human resources strategy. Entergy focuses on an approach that includes, among other things, governance and oversight; safety; organizational health, including diversity, inclusion and belonging; and talent management.

283

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Governance and Oversight

Ensuring that workplace processes support the desired culture and strategy begins with the Board of Directors and the Office of the Chief Executive. The Personnel Committee establishes priorities and reviews performance on a range of topics. It oversees Entergy’s incentive plan design and administers its executive compensation plans to incentivize the behaviors and outcomes that support achievement of Entergy’s corporate objectives. Annually, it reviews executive performance, development and succession plans to align a high performing executive team with Entergy’s priorities. The Personnel Committee also oversees Entergy’s performance through regular briefings on a wide variety of human resources topics including Entergy’s safety culture and performance; organizational health; and diversity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives and performance.

Other committees of the Board oversee other key aspects of Entergy’s culture. For example, the Audit Committee reviews reports on ethics and compliance training and performance, as well as regular reports on calls made to Entergy’s ethics line and related investigations. To maximize the sharing of information and facilitate the participation of all Board members in these discussions, the Board schedules its regular committee meetings in a manner such that all directors can attend.

The Office of the Chief Executive, which includes the Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, ensures annual business plans are designed to support Entergy’s talent objectives, reviews workforce-related metrics, and regularly discusses the development, succession planning, and performance of their direct reports and other company officers.

Safety

Entergy’s safety objective is: Everyone Safe. All Day. Every Day. While the COVID-19 pandemic and historical hurricane season presented significant challenges, Entergy’s safety strategy and commitment to excellence showed results in 2020. Entergy employees achieved a total recordable incident rate of 0.40 in 2020 compared to 0.56 in 2019 and 0.48 in 2018. The recordable incident rate equals the number of recordable incidents per 100 full-time equivalents. Recordable incidents include fatalities, lost-time accidents, restricted-duty accidents, and medical attentions and is not inclusive of potential work-related COVID-19 cases. This marked improvement in total recordable incident rate placed Entergy in top-decile in safety performance when benchmarked amongst peers within the Edison Electric Institute.

Organizational Health, including Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging

Entergy believes that organizational health fosters an engaged and productive culture that positions Entergy to deliver sustainable value to its stakeholders. Entergy measures its progress through an organizational health survey coordinated by an external third party. Since initially administering the survey in 2014, Entergy improved from an initial score of 49 (fourth quartile) to a score in 2020 of 72 (near top quartile). In addition to significantly improved scores, initial employee participation of 66 percent in 2014 rose to and remains at 90 percent in 2018-2020.

Entergy believes that a culture focused on diversity, inclusion, and belonging drives foundational engagement. Entergy is committed to developing and retaining a workforce that reflects the rich diversity of the communities it serves. In 2019, Entergy embarked on a three-year phased approach to enhance inclusion for individuals and teams. Among other actions, the primary focus of its 2020 actions was taking a stand against social injustice, reinforcing expectations, training and leading by example, starting at the top of the organization and cascading through management ranks.

284

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Talent Management

Entergy’s focus on talent management is organized in three areas: developing and attracting a diverse pool of talent, equipping its leaders to develop the organization, and building premier utility capability through employee performance management and succession programs. Entergy believes that developing a diverse pool of local talent equipped with the skills needed, today and in the future, and reflecting the communities Entergy serves will give it a long-term competitive advantage. The focus of Entergy’s leadership development programs is to equip managers with the skills needed to effectively develop their teams and improve the leader-employee relationship. Entergy’s talent development infrastructure, which includes a combination of business function-specific and enterprise-wide learning and development programs, is designed to ensure Entergy has qualified staff with the skills, experiences, and behaviors needed to perform today and prepare for the future. Entergy strives to achieve its strategic priorities by aligning and enhancing team and individual performance with business objectives, effectively deploying talent through succession planning, and managing workforce transitions.

Availability of SEC filings and other information on Entergy’s website

Entergy electronically files reports with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxies, and amendments to such reports. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of the reports that Entergy files with the SEC can be obtained at the SEC’s website.

Entergy uses its website, http://www.entergy.com, as a routine channel for distribution of important information, including news releases, analyst presentations and financial information.  Filings made with the SEC are posted and available without charge on Entergy’s website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.  These filings include annual and quarterly reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q (including related filings in Inline XBRL format) and current reports on Form 8-K; proxy statements; and any amendments to those reports or statements.  All such postings and filings are available on Entergy’s Investor Relations website free of charge.  Entergy is providing the address to its internet site solely for the information of investors and does not intend the address to be an active link.  The contents of the website are not incorporated into this report.


285

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

RISK FACTORS

See “RISK FACTOR SUMMARY” in Part I Item 1 for a summary of Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ risk factors.

Investors should review carefully the following risk factors and the other information in this Form 10-K.  The risks that Entergy faces are not limited to those in this section.  There may be additional risks and uncertainties (either currently unknown or not currently believed to be material) that could adversely affect Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.  See “FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION.”

Utility Regulatory Risks

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and responsive measures taken on Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ business, results of operations, and financial condition are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

In December 2019 a novel strain of coronavirus was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan, China. Since then, COVID-19 has spread throughout most countries in the world, including the United States. Public health officials in the United States have both recommended and mandated wearing of masks, precautions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including prohibitions on congregating in heavily-populated areas, mandated closure or limitations on the functions of non-essential business, and shelter-in-place orders or similar measures, including throughout Entergy’s service areas. While some of these mitigation measures have been lifted, it is unclear how long certain forms of mitigation measures will remain in place, whether they will be reinstated in the future, and how they will ultimately impact the general economy, Entergy’s customers, and its operations.

Entergy and its Utility operating companies have experienced a decline in commercial and industrial sales and an increase in arrearages and bad debt expense due to non-payment by customers, and expect such reduced levels of sales and increased arrearages and bad debt expense to continue, the extent and duration of which management cannot predict. The Utility operating companies temporarily suspended disconnecting customers for non-payment of bills, and the suspension remains in place at Entergy Arkansas, has been re-instituted at Entergy New Orleans, and could be re-instituted at the other Utility operating companies should their regulators mandate. While they are working with regulators to ensure ultimate recovery for those and other COVID-19 related costs, the amount, method, and timing of such recovery is unknown. Entergy and its Registrant Subsidiaries also could experience, and in some cases have experienced, among other challenges, supply chain, vendor, and contractor disruptions; delays in completion of capital or other construction projects, maintenance, and other operations activities, including prolonged or delayed outages; delays in regulatory proceedings; workforce availability, health or safety issues; increased storm recovery costs; increased cybersecurity risks as a result of many employees telecommuting; increased late or uncollectible customer payments; volatility in the credit or capital markets (and any related increased cost of capital or any inability to access the capital markets or draw on available credit facilities); or other adverse impacts on their ability to execute on business strategies and initiatives.

A sustained or further economic decline could adversely impact Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity and cash flows, including through declining sales, reduced revenues, delays in receipts of customer payments, or increased bad debt expense. The Utility operating companies also may experience regulatory outcomes that require them to postpone planned investment and otherwise reduce costs due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their customers. In addition, if the COVID-19 pandemic continues to create disruptions or turmoil in the credit or financial markets, or adversely impacts Entergy’s credit metrics or ratings, such developments could adversely affect its ability to access capital on favorable terms and continue to meet its
286

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

liquidity needs, or cause a decrease in the value of its defined benefit pension trust funds, as well as its nuclear decommissioning trust funds, all of which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

Entergy cannot predict the extent or duration of the outbreak, the impact of new variants of COVID-19, the timing, availability, distribution or effectiveness of a vaccine, anti-viral or other treatments for COVID-19, governmental responsive measures, or the extent of the effects or ultimate impacts on the global, national or local economy, the capital markets, or its customers, suppliers, operations, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

The terms and conditions of service, including electric and gas rates, of the Utility operating companies and System Energy are determined through regulatory approval proceedings that can be lengthy and subject to appeal, potentially resulting in delays in effecting rate changes, lengthy litigation and uncertainty as to ultimate results.

The Utility operating companies are regulated on a cost-of-service and rate of return basis and are subject to statutes and regulatory commission rules and procedures. The rates that the Utility operating companies and System Energy charge reflect their capital expenditures, operations and maintenance costs, allowed rates of return, financing costs, and related costs of service.  These rates significantly influence the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy and each of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.  These rates are determined in regulatory proceedings and are subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment, including adjustment upon the initiative of a regulator or affected stakeholders.

In addition, regulators may initiate proceedings to investigate the prudence of costs in the Utility operating companies’ and System Energy’s base rates and examine, among other things, the reasonableness or prudence of the companies’ operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures (including storm costs and costs associated with capital projects), allowed rates of return and rate base, proposed resource acquisitions, and previously incurred capital expenditures that the operating companies seek to place in rates.  The regulators may disallow costs subject to their jurisdiction found not to have been prudently incurred or found not to have been incurred in compliance with applicable tariffs, creating some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs.  Regulatory proceedings relating to rates and other matters typically involve multiple parties seeking to limit or reduce rates.  Traditional base rate proceedings, as opposed to formula rate plans, generally have long timelines, are primarily based on historical costs, and may or may not be limited in scope or duration by statute. The length of these base rate proceedings can cause the Utility operating companies and System Energy to experience regulatory lag in recovering costs through rates, such that the Utility operating companies may not fully recover all costs during the rate effective period and the Utility operating companies may, therefore, earn less than their allowed returns.  Decisions are typically subject to appeal, potentially leading to additional uncertainty associated with rate case proceedings.

The Utility operating companies have large customer and stakeholder bases and, as a result, could be the subject of public criticism or adverse publicity focused on issues including the operation of their assets and infrastructure or the quality of their service. Criticism or adverse publicity of this nature could render legislatures and other governing bodies, public service commissions and other regulatory authorities, and government officials less likely to view the applicable operating company in a favorable light and could potentially negatively affect legislative or regulatory processes or outcomes, as well as lead to increased regulatory oversight or more stringent legislative or regulatory requirements.

The base rates of Entergy Texas are established largely in traditional base rate case proceedings.Between base rate proceedings, Entergy Texas has available rate riders to recover the revenue requirements associated with certain incremental costs.These riders include a distribution cost recovery factor rider mechanism for the recovery of distribution-related capital investment and certain non-fuel MISO charges, a transmission cost recovery factor rider mechanism for the recovery of transmission-related capital investments, a generation cost recovery rider mechanism for the recovery of generation-related capital investments, and a fixed fuel factor mechanism for the recovery of MISO fuel and energy-related costs.Entergy Texas also is required to make a filing every three years,
287

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

at a minimum, reconciling its fuel and purchased power costs and fuel factor revenues.In the course of this reconciliation, the PUCT determines whether eligible fuel and fuel-related expenses and revenues are necessary and reasonable, and makes a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts for the reconciliation period.Entergy Texas also is required to file full base rate case proceedings every four years and within eighteen months of utilizing its generation cost recovery rider for investments above $200 million.

Between base rate cases, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi are able to adjust base rates annually through formula rate plans that utilize a forward test year (Entergy Arkansas) or forward-looking features (Entergy Mississippi).In response to Entergy Arkansas’s application for a general change in rates in 2015, the APSC approved the formula rate plan tariff proposed by Entergy Arkansas including its use of a projected year test period and an initial five-year term.The initial five-year term expires in 2021. Entergy Arkansas has requested APSC approval of the extension of the formula rate plan tariff for an additional five years through 2026.If Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan were terminated or not extended beyond the initial term, Entergy Arkansas could file an application for a general change in rates that may include a request for continued regulation under a formula rate review mechanism.If Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan is terminated, it would revert to the more traditional rate case environment or seek approval of a new formula rate plan.Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi recover fuel and purchased energy and certain non-fuel costs through other APSC-approved and MPSC-approved tariffs, respectively.

Entergy Louisiana historically sets electric base rates annually through a formula rate plan using an historic test year.The form of the formula rate plan, on a combined basis, was approved in connection with the business combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and largely followed the formula rate plans that were approved by the LPSC in connection with the full electric base rate cases filed by those companies in February 2013.The formula rate plan was most recently extended through the test year 2019; certain modifications were made in that extension, including a decrease to the allowed return on equity and the addition of a transmission cost recovery mechanism.The formula rate plan continues to include exceptions from the rate cap and sharing requirements for certain large capital investment projects, including acquisition or construction of generating facilities and purchase power agreements approved by the LPSC and as noted, for certain transmission investment, among other items.MISO fuel and energy-related costs are recoverable in Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause.Entergy Louisiana has a pending request to extend its formula rate plan with certain modifications, including implementation of a distribution investment recovery mechanism and use of end of period rate base.In the event that the electric formula rate plan is not renewed or extended, Entergy Louisiana would revert to the more traditional rate case environment.

Entergy New Orleans previously operated under a formula rate plan that ended with the 2011 test year.Based on a settlement agreement approved by the City Council, with limited exceptions, the base rates of Entergy New Orleans were frozen until rates were implemented in connection with the base rate case filed by Entergy New Orleans in 2018.In November 2019 the City Council issued a resolution resolving the rate case, with rates to become effective retroactive to August 2019.The resolution allows Entergy New Orleans to implement a three-year formula rate plan, beginning with the 2019 test year as adjusted for forward-looking known and measurable changes.In November 2020 the City Council issued a resolution approving a settlement of the 2018 rate case.As part of this settlement, Entergy New Orleans agreed to postpone the filing of its first test year formula rate plan to 2021 and, in return, to be provided an additional test year for the three-year cycle.See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion.

The rates of System Energy are established by the FERC, and the costs allowed to be charged pursuant to these rates are, in turn, passed through to the participating Utility operating companies through the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which has monthly billings that reflect the current operating costs of, and investment in, Grand Gulf. Retail regulators and other parties may seek to initiate proceedings at FERC to investigate the prudence of costs included in the rates charged under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and examine, among other things, the
288

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

reasonableness or prudence of the operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures, allowed rates of return and rate base, and previously incurred capital expenditures. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is currently the subject of several litigation proceedings at the FERC, including a challenge with respect to System Energy’s uncertain tax positions, sale leaseback arrangement, authorized return on equity and capital structure, and a separate request for FERC to initiate a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Entergy cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings nor can it predict whether any outcome could have a material effect on Entergy’s or System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the proceedings. System Energy has received FERC acceptance for billing protocols to provide retail regulators with information regarding rates billed under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

The Utility operating companies and System Energy, and the energy industry as a whole, have experienced a period of rising costs and investments, and an upward trend in spending, especially with respect to infrastructure investments, which is likely to continue in the foreseeable future and could result in more frequent rate cases and requests for, and the continuation of, cost recovery mechanisms.  For information regarding rate case proceedings and formula rate plans applicable to the Utility operating companies, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

Changes to state or federal legislation or regulation affecting electric generation, electric and natural gas transmission, distribution, and related activities could adversely affect Entergy and the Utility operating companies’ financial position, results of operations, or cash flows and their utility businesses.

If legislative and regulatory structures evolve in a manner that erodes the Utility operating companies’ exclusive rights to serve their regulated customers, they could lose customers and sales and their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially affected. Additionally, technological advances in energy efficiency and distributed energy resources are reducing the costs of these technologies and together with ongoing state and federal subsidies, the increasing penetration of these technologies could result in reduced sales by the Utility operating companies. Such loss of sales could put upward pressure on rates, resulting in adverse regulatory actions to mitigate such effects on rates. Entergy and the Utility operating companies cannot predict if or when they may be subject to changes in legislation or regulation, or the extent and timing of reductions of the cost of distributed energy resources, nor can they predict the impact of these changes on their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The Utility operating companies recover fuel, purchased power, and associated costs through rate mechanisms that are subject to risks of delay or disallowance in regulatory proceedings.

The Utility operating companies recover their fuel, purchased power, and associated costs from their customers through rate mechanisms subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment.  Because regulatory review can result in the disallowance of incurred costs found not to have been prudently incurred, including the cost of replacement power purchased when generators experience outages or when planned outages are extended, with the possibility of refunds to ratepayers, there exists some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs, particularly when there are substantial or sudden increases in such costs.  Regulators also may initiate proceedings to investigate the continued usage or the adequacy and operation of the fuel and purchased power recovery clauses of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, there can be no assurance that existing recovery mechanisms will remain unchanged or in effect at all.

The Utility operating companies’ cash flows can be negatively affected by the time delays between when gas, power, or other commodities are purchased and the ultimate recovery from customers of the costs in rates.  On occasion, when the level of incurred costs for fuel and purchased power rises very dramatically, some of the Utility operating companies may agree to defer recovery of a portion of that period’s fuel and purchased power costs for recovery at a later date, which could increase the near-term working capital and borrowing requirements of those companies.  For a description of fuel and purchased power recovery mechanisms and information regarding the regulatory proceedings for fuel and purchased power costs recovery, see Note 2 to the financial statements.
289

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


There remains uncertainty regarding the effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies.

The Utility operating companies historically engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating resources and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that had been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement terminated in its entirety on August 31, 2016.

There remains uncertainty regarding the long-term effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies because of the significant effect of the agreement on the generation and transmission functions of the Utility operating companies and the significant period of time (over 30 years) that it had been in existence. In the absence of the System Agreement, there remains uncertainty around the effectiveness of governance processes and the potential absence of federal authority to resolve certain issues among the Utility operating companies and their retail regulators.

In addition, although the System Agreement terminated in its entirety in August 2016, there are a few outstanding System Agreement proceedings at the FERC and at the D.C. Circuit that may require future adjustments, including challenges to the level and timing of payments made by Entergy Arkansas under the System Agreement. The outcome and timing of these FERC proceedings and resulting recovery and impact on rates cannot be predicted at this time.

For further information regarding the regulatory proceedings relating to the System Agreement, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO RTO tariff and their participation in the MISO RTO’s wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

On December 19, 2013, the Utility operating companies integrated into the MISO RTO. MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a bilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets. MISO tariff rules and system conditions, including transmission congestion, could affect the Utility operating companies’ ability to sell capacity, energy, and/or ancillary services in certain regions and/or the economic value of such sales, or the cost of serving the Utility operating companies’ respective loads, and MISO market rules may change in ways that cause additional risk.

The Utility operating companies participate in the MISO regional transmission planning process and are subject to risks associated with planning decisions that MISO makes in the exercise of control over the planning of the Utility operating companies’ transmission assets that are under MISO’s functional control. The Utility operating companies pay transmission rates that reflect the cost of transmission projects that the Utility operating companies do not own, which could increase cash or financing needs. In addition to the cash and financing-related risks arising from the potential additional cost allocation to the Utility operating companies from transmission projects of others, there is a risk that the Utility operating companies’ business and financial position could be harmed as a result of lost investment opportunities and other effects that flow from an increased number of competitive projects being approved and constructed that are interconnected with their transmission systems. Further, the terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets, the
290

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

allocation of transmission upgrade costs, the MISO-wide allowed base rate of return on equity, and any required MISO-related charges and credits are subject to regulation by the FERC. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO tariff and their participation in the MISO wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements. In addition, orders from each of the Utility operating companies’ respective retail regulators generally require that the Utility operating companies make periodic filings, or generally allow the retail regulator to direct the making of such filings, setting forth the results of analysis of the costs and benefits realized from MISO membership as well as the projected costs and benefits of continued membership in MISO and/or requesting approval of their continued membership in MISO. These filings have been submitted periodically by each of the Utility operating companies as required by their respective retail regulators, and the outcome of the resulting proceedings may affect the Utility operating companies’ continued membership in MISO.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred as a result of severe weather (including from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta), or the impact on customer bills of permitted storm cost recovery, could have material effects on Entergy and its Utility operating companies.

Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition can be materially affected by the destructive effects of severe weather.  Severe weather can also result in significant outages for the customers of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, reduced revenues for the Utility operating companies during the period of the outages.  A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred or revenues lost as a result of severe weather could have a material effect on Entergy and those Utility operating companies affected by severe weather. In addition, the recovery of major storm restoration costs from customers could effectively limit our ability to make planned capital or other investments due to the impact of such storm cost recovery on customer bills.

In August and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, including New Orleans, Texas, and to a lesser extent, in Arkansas and Mississippi. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of the electrical system damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $2.4 billion. Because Entergy has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

Nuclear Operating, Shutdown, and Regulatory Risks

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy)

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities must consistently operate their nuclear power plants at high capacity factors in order to be successful, and lower capacity factors could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Nuclear capacity factors significantly affect the results of operations of certain Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  Nuclear plant operations involve substantial fixed operating
291

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

costs.  Consequently, to be successful, a plant owner must consistently operate its nuclear power plants at high capacity factors, consistent with safety requirements. For the Utility operating companies that own nuclear plants, lower capacity factors can increase production costs by requiring the affected companies to generate additional energy, sometimes at higher costs, from their owned or contractually controlled facilities or purchase additional energy in the spot or forward markets in order to satisfy their supply needs.  For the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants, lower capacity factors directly affect revenues and cash flow from operations.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward sales are comprised of various hedge products, many of which have some degree of operational-contingent price risk. Certain unit-contingent contracts guarantee specified minimum capacity factors. In the event plants with these contracts were operating below the guaranteed capacity factors, Entergy would be subject to price risk for the undelivered power.  Further, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear forward sales contracts can also be on a firm LD basis, which subjects Entergy to increasing price risk as capacity factors decrease. Many of these firm hedge products have damages risk.

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy periodically shut down their nuclear power plants to replenish fuel.  Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such refueling outages.  If refueling outages last longer than anticipated or if unplanned outages arise, Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected.

Outages at nuclear power plants to replenish fuel require the plant to be “turned off.”  Refueling outages generally are planned to occur once every 18 to 24 months.  Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such planned outages, which typically extends the planned outage duration.  When refueling outages last longer than anticipated or a plant experiences unplanned outages, capacity factors decrease, and maintenance costs may increase.

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy face risks related to the purchase of uranium fuel (and its conversion, enrichment, and fabrication). These risks could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, Entergy’s nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable prices through 2020 and beyond. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners. While there are a number of possible alternate suppliers that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, the pricing of any such alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time. Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S. Market prices for nuclear fuel have been extremely volatile from time to time in the past and may be subject to increased volatility due to the imposition of tariffs, domestic purchase requirements or limitations on importation of uranium or uranium products from foreign countries, or shifting trade arrangements between countries.  Although Entergy’s nuclear fuel contract portfolio provides a degree of hedging against market risks for several years, costs for nuclear fuel in the future cannot be predicted with certainty due to normal inherent market uncertainties, and price changes could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.

Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance and reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. These service providers are fewer in number than uranium suppliers. For conversion and enrichment services, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures to ensure a reliable supply of enriched uranium for fabrication into nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel; therefore, Entergy relies upon additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight of the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality of its nuclear fuel. Certain of the suppliers and service providers are located in or dependent upon countries, such as Russia, in which international sanctions or tariffs could further restrict the ability of such
292

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

suppliers to continue to supply fuel or provide such services at acceptable prices or at all.  The inability of such suppliers or service providers to perform such obligations could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business face the risk that the NRC will change or modify its regulations, suspend or revoke their licenses, or increase oversight of their nuclear plants, which could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Under the Atomic Energy Act and Energy Reorganization Act, the NRC regulates the operation of nuclear power plants.  The NRC may modify, suspend, or supplementrevoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility and impose civil penalties for failure to comply with the stepsAtomic Energy Act, related regulations, or the terms of the licenses for nuclear facilities. Interested parties may also intervene which could result in prolonged proceedings. A change in the Atomic Energy Act, other applicable statutes, or the applicable regulations or licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, may require a substantial increase in capital expenditures or may result in increased operating or decommissioning costs and could materially affect the results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition of Entergy (through Entergy Wholesale Commodities), its Utility operating companies, or System Energy.  A change in the classification of a plant owned by one of these companies under the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process, which is the NRC’s program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response, also could cause the owner of the plant to incur material additional costs as a result of the increased oversight activity and potential response costs associated with the change in classification.For additional information concerning the current classification of the plants owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see “Regulation of Entergy’s Business- Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry - NRC Reactor Oversight Process” in Part I, Item 1.

Events at nuclear plants owned by one of these companies, as well as those owned by others, may lead to a change in laws or regulations or the terms of the applicable licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, or may cause the NRC to increase oversight activity or initiate actions to modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility, or impose civil penalties.  As a result, if an incident were to occur at any nuclear generating unit, whether an Entergy nuclear generating unit or not, it could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities are exposed to risks and costs related to operating and maintaining their nuclear power plants, and their failure to maintain operational efficiency at their nuclear power plants could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

The nuclear generating units owned by certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy,and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business began commercial operations in the 1970s-1980s.  Older equipment may require more capital expenditures to keep each of these nuclear power plants operating safely and efficiently.  This equipment is also likely to require periodic upgrading and improvement.  Any unexpected failure, including failure associated with breakdowns, forced outages, or any unanticipated capital expenditures, could result in increased costs, some of which costs may not be fully recoverable by the Utility operating companies and System Energy in regulatory proceedings should there be a determination of imprudence.  Operations at any of the nuclear generating units owned and operated by Entergy’s subsidiaries could degrade to the point where the affected unit needs to be shut down or operated at less than full capacity.  If this were to happen, identifying and correcting the causes may require significant time and expense.  A decision may be made to close a unit rather than incur the expense of restarting it or returning the unit to full capacity.  For the Utility operating companies and System Energy, this could result in certain costs being stranded and potentially not fully recoverable in regulatory proceedings. For Entergy Wholesale Commodities, this could result in lost revenue and increased fuel and purchased power expense to meet
293

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

supply commitments and penalties for failure to perform under their contracts with customers. In addition, the operation and maintenance of Entergy’s nuclear facilities require the commitment of substantial human resources that can result in increased costs.

The nuclear industry continues to address susceptibility to the effects of stress corrosion cracking and other corrosion mechanisms on certain materials within plant systems.  The issue is applicable at all nuclear units to varying degrees and is managed in accordance with industry standard practices and guidelines that include in-service examinations, replacements, and mitigation strategies.  Developments in the industry or identification of issues at the nuclear units could require unanticipated remediation efforts that cannot be quantified in advance.

Moreover, Entergy is becoming more dependent on fewer suppliers for key parts of Entergy’s nuclear power plants that may need to be replaced or refurbished, and in some cases, parts are no longer available and have to be reverse-engineered for replacement.  In addition, certain major parts have long lead-times to manufacture if an unplanned replacement is needed. This dependence on a reduced number of suppliers and long lead-times on certain major parts for unplanned replacements could result in delays in obtaining qualified replacement parts and, therefore, greater expense for Entergy.

The costs associated with the storage of the spent nuclear fuel of certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, as well as the costs of and their ability to fully decommission their nuclear power plants, could be significantly affected by the timing of the opening of a spent nuclear fuel disposal facility, as well as interim storage and transportation requirements.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants incur costs for the on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel.  The approval of a license for a national repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, such as the one proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, or any interim storage facility, and the timing of such facility opening, will significantly affect the costs associated with on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel.  For example, while the DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing of Yucca Mountain and, after the license is granted by the NRC, to construct the repository and commence the receipt of spent fuel, the NRC licensing of the Yucca Mountain repository is effectively at a standstill. These actions are prolonging the time before spent fuel is removed from Entergy’s plant sites.  Because the DOE has not accomplished its objectives, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts, and Entergy has sued the DOE for such breach.  Furthermore, Entergy is uncertain as to when the DOE will commence acceptance of spent fuel from its facilities for storage or disposal.  As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at the companies’ nuclear sites and maintenance costs on existing storage facilities, including aging management of fuel storage casks, may increase.  The costs of on-site storage are also affected by regulatory requirements for such storage.  In addition, the availability of a repository or other off-site storage facility for spent nuclear fuel may affect the ability to fully decommission the nuclear units and the costs relating to decommissioning.  For further information regarding spent fuel storage, see the “Critical Accounting EstimatesNuclear Decommissioning CostsSpent Fuel Disposal” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy and Note 8 to the financial statements.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to pay substantial retrospective premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act in the event of a nuclear incident, and losses not covered by insurance could have a material effect on Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

Accidents and other unforeseen problems at nuclear power plants have occurred both in the United States and elsewhere.  The Price-Anderson Act limits each reactor owner’s public liability (off-site) for a single nuclear incident to the payment of retrospective premiums into a secondary insurance pool, which is referred to as Secondary Financial Protection, up to approximately $137.6 million per reactor.  With 97 reactors currently
294

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

participating, this translates to a total public liability cap of approximately $14 billion per incident.  The limit is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation, a change in the primary limit of insurance coverage, and changes in the number of licensed reactors.  As required by the Price-Anderson Act, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities carry the maximum available amount of primary nuclear off-site liability insurance with American Nuclear Insurers, which is $450 million for each operating site.  Claims for any nuclear incident exceeding that amount are covered under Secondary Financial Protection.  As a result, in the event of a nuclear incident that causes damages (off-site) in excess of the primary insurance coverage, each owner of a nuclear plant reactor, including Entergy’s Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners, regardless of fault or proximity to the incident, will be required to pay a retrospective premium, equal to its proportionate share of the loss in excess of the primary insurance level, up to a maximum of approximately $137.6 million per reactor per incident (Entergy’s maximum total contingent obligation per incident is $1.101 billion).  The retrospective premium payment is currently limited to approximately $21 million per year per incident per reactor until the aggregate public liability for each licensee is paid up to the $137.6 million cap.

NEIL is a utility industry mutual insurance company, owned by its members, including the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants. All member plants could be subject to an annual assessment (retrospective premium of up to 10 times current annual premium for all policies) should the NEIL surplus (reserve) be significantly depleted due toinsured losses.  As of December 31, 2020, the maximum annual assessment amounts total $104 million for the Utility plants.  Retrospective premium insurance available through NEIL’s reinsurance treaty can cover the potential assessments and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants currently maintain the retrospective premium insurance to cover those potential assessments.

As an owner of nuclear power plants, Entergy participates in industry self-insurance programs and could be liable to fund claims should a plant owned by a different company experience a major event.  Any resulting liability from a nuclear accident may exceed the applicable primary insurance coverage and require contribution of additional funds through the industry-wide program that could significantly affect the results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries.

The decommissioning trust fund assets for the nuclear power plants owned by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may not be adequate to meet decommissioning obligations if market performance and other changes decrease the value of assets in the decommissioning trusts, if one or more of Entergy’s nuclear power plants is retired earlier than the anticipated shutdown date, if the plants cost more to decommission than estimated, or if current regulatory requirements change, which then could require significant additional funding.

Owners of nuclear generating plants have an obligation to decommission those plants.  Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants maintain decommissioning trust funds for this purpose.  Certain of the Utility operating companies collect funds from their customers, which are deposited into the trusts covering the units operated for or on behalf of those companies.  Those rate collections, as adjusted from time to time by rate regulators, are generally based upon operating license lives and trust fund balances as well as estimated trust fund earnings and decommissioning costs.  Assets in these trust funds are subject to market fluctuations, will yield uncertain returns that may fall below projected return rates, and may result in losses resulting from the recognition of impairments of the value of certain securities held in these trust funds.

Under NRC regulations, nuclear plant owners are permitted to project the NRC-required decommissioning amount, based on an NRC formula or a site-specific estimate, and the amount that will be available in each nuclear power plant’s decommissioning trusts combined with any other decommissioning financial assurances in place.  The projections are made based on the operating license expiration date and the mid-point of the subsequent
295

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

decommissioning process, or the anticipated actual completion of decommissioning if a site-specific estimate is used. If the projected amount of each individual plant’s decommissioning trusts exceeds the NRC-required decommissioning amount, then its NRC license termination decommissioning obligations are considered to be funded in accordance with NRC regulations.  If the projected costs do not sufficiently reflect the actual costs required to decommission these nuclear power plants, or funding is otherwise inadequate, or if the formula, formula inputs, or site-specific estimate is changed to require increased funding, additional resources or commitments would be required.  Furthermore, depending upon the level of funding available in the trust funds, the NRC may not permit the trust funds to be used to pay for related costs such as the management of spent nuclear fuel that are not included in the NRC’s formula.  The NRC may also require a plan for the provision of separate funding for spent fuel management costs.  In addition to NRC requirements, there are other decommissioning-related obligations for certain of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, which management believes it will be able to satisfy.

Further, federal or state regulatory changes, including mandated increases in decommissioning funding or changes in the methods or standards for decommissioning operations, may also increase the funding requirements of, or accelerate the timing for funding of, the obligations related to the decommissioning of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants or may restrict the decommissioning-related costs that can be paid from the decommissioning trusts.  Such changes also could result in the need for additional contributions to decommissioning trusts, or the posting of parent guarantees, letters of credit, or other surety mechanisms. As a result, under any of these circumstances, Entergy’s results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition could be materially affected.

An early plant shutdown (either generally or relative to current expectations), poor investment results, or higher than anticipated decommissioning costs (including as a result of changing regulatory requirements) could cause trust fund assets to be insufficient to meet the decommissioning obligations, with the result that the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to provide significant additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning, which, with respect to the Utility operating companies, may not be recoverable from customers in a timely fashion or at all.

For further information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs, management’s decision to exit the merchant power business, the impairment charges that resulted from such decision, and the planned sales of Palisades and Indian Point Energy Center (which, in each case, will include the transfer of the associated decommissioning trusts), see the “Critical Accounting Estimates- Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, and Notes 9 and 14 to the financial statements.

New or existing safety concerns regarding operating nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel could lead to restrictions upon the operation and decommissioning of Entergy’s nuclear power plants.

New and existing concerns are being expressed in public forums about the safety of nuclear generating units and nuclear fuel. These concerns have led to, and may continue to lead to, various proposals to Federal regulators and governing bodies in some localities where Entergy’s subsidiaries own nuclear generating units for legislative and regulatory changes that might lead to the shutdown of nuclear units, additional requirements or restrictions related to spent nuclear fuel on-site storage and eventual disposal, or other adverse effects on owning, operating, and decommissioning nuclear generating units.  Entergy vigorously responds to these concerns and proposals.  If any of the existing proposals, or any proposals that may arise in the future with respect to legislative and regulatory changes, become effective, they could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations and financial condition.

296

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

(Entergy Corporation)

Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are exposed to price risk.

Entergy and its subsidiaries do not have a regulator-authorized rate of return on their capital investments in non-utility businesses.  As a result, the sale of capacity and energy from the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, unless otherwise contracted, is subject to the fluctuation of market power prices. In order to reduce future price risk to desired levels, Entergy Wholesale Commodities utilizes contracts that are unit-contingent and Firm LD and various products such as forward sales, options, and collars.  As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power generation plants had sold forward 98% in 2021 and 99% in 2022 of its generation portfolio’s planned energy output, reflecting the planned shutdown and sale of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants by mid-2022.

Market conditions such as product cost, market liquidity, and other portfolio considerations influence the product and contractual mix.  The obligations under unit-contingent agreements depend on a generating asset that is operating; if the generation asset is not operating, the seller generally is not liable for damages.  For some unit-contingent obligations, however, there is also a guarantee of availability that provides for the payment to the power purchaser of contract damages, if incurred, in the event the unit owner fails to deliver power as a result of the failure of the specified generation unit to generate power at or above a specified availability threshold.  Firm LD sales transactions may be exposed to substantial operational price risk, a portion of which may be capped through the use of risk management products, to the extent that the plants do not run as expected and market prices exceed contract prices.

Market prices may fluctuate substantially, sometimes over relatively short periods of time, and at other times experience sustained increases or decreases.  Demand for electricity and its fuel stock can fluctuate dramatically, creating periods of substantial under- or over-supply.  During periods of over-supply, prices might be depressed.  Also, from time to time there may be political pressure, or pressure from regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over wholesale and retail energy commodity and transportation rates, to impose price limitations, credit requirements, bidding rules, and other mechanisms to address volatility and other issues in these markets.

The effects of sustained low natural gas prices and power market structure challenges have resulted in lower market prices for electricity in the power regions where the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are located. In addition, currently the market design under which the plants operate does not adequately compensate merchant nuclear plants for their environmental and fuel diversity benefits in the region. These conditions were primary factors leading to Entergy’s decision to shut down (or sell) Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power plants before the end of their operating licenses.

The price that different counterparties offer for various products including forward sales is influenced both by market conditions as well as the contract terms such as damage provisions, credit support requirements, and the number of available counterparties interested in contracting for the desired forward period.  Depending on differences between market factors at the time of contracting versus current conditions, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contract portfolio may have average contract prices above or below current market prices, including at the expiration of the contracts, which may significantly affect Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.  New hedges are generally layered into on a rolling forward basis, which tends to drive hedge over-performance to market in a falling price environment, and hedge underperformance to market in a rising price environment; however, hedge timing, product choice, and hedging costs will also affect these results. See the “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries.  Since Entergy Wholesale Commodities has announced the closure (or sale) of its nuclear plants, Entergy Wholesale Commodities may enter into fewer forward sales contracts for output from such plants.

297

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to substantial governmental regulation and may be adversely affected by legislative, regulatory, or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to extensive regulation under federal, state, and local laws. Compliance with the requirements under these various regulatory regimes may cause the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to incur significant additional costs, and failure to comply with such requirements could result in the shutdown of the non-complying facility, the imposition of liens, fines, and/or civil or criminal liability.

Public utilities under the Federal Power Act are required to obtain FERC acceptance of their rate schedules for wholesale sales of electricity.  Each of the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants that generates electricity, as well as Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC, is a “public utility” under the Federal Power Act by virtue of making wholesale sales of electric energy and/or owning wholesale electric transmission facilities.  The FERC has granted these generating and power marketing companies the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates.  The FERC’s orders that grant the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating and power marketing companies market-based rate authority reserve the right to revoke or revise that authority if the FERC subsequently determines that the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business can exercise market power in transmission or generation, create barriers to entry, or engage in abusive affiliate transactions.  In addition, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ market-based sales are subject to certain market behavior rules, and if any of its generating and power marketing companies were deemed to have violated one of those rules, they would be subject to potential disgorgement of profits associated with the violation and/or suspension or revocation of their market-based rate authority and potential penalties of up to $1.29 million per day per violation.  If the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating or power marketing companies were to lose their market-based rate authority, such companies would be required to obtain the FERC’s acceptance of a cost-of-service rate schedule and could become subject to the accounting, record-keeping, and reporting requirements that are imposed on utilities with cost-based rate schedules.  This could have an adverse effect on the rates the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business charges for power from its facilities.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is also affected by legislative and regulatory changes, as well as changes to market design, market rules, tariffs, cost allocations, and bidding rules imposed by the existing Independent System Operators.  The Independent System Operators that oversee most of the wholesale power markets may impose, and in the future may continue to impose, mitigation, including price limitations, offer caps and other mechanisms, to address some of the volatility and the potential exercise of market power in these markets.  These types of price limitations and other regulatory mechanisms may have an adverse effect on the profitability of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business’ generation facilities that sell energy and capacity into the wholesale power markets. For further information regarding federal, state, and local laws and regulation applicable to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Regulation of Entergy’s Business” section in Part I, Item 1.

The regulatory environment applicable to the electric power industry is subject to changes as a result of restructuring initiatives at both the state and federal levels. Entergy cannot predict the future design of the wholesale power markets or the ultimate effect that the changing regulatory environment will have on the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.  In addition, in some of these markets, interested parties have proposed material market design changes, including the elimination of a single clearing price mechanism, have raised claims that the competitive marketplace is not working because energy prices in wholesale markets exceed the marginal cost of operating nuclear power plants, and have made proposals to re-regulate the markets, impose a generation tax, or require divestitures by generating companies to reduce their market share.  Other proposals to re-regulate may be made and legislative or other attention to the electric power market restructuring process may delay or reverse the deregulation process, which could require material changes to business planning models.  If competitive restructuring of the electric power markets is reversed, modified, discontinued, or delayed, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected.
298

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


The power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to impairment charges in certain circumstances, which could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

Entergy reviews long-lived assets held in all of its business segments whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that recoverability of these assets is uncertain.  Generally, the determination of recoverability is based on the undiscounted net cash flows expected to result from the operations of such assets.  Projected net cash flows depend on the expected operating life of the assets, the future operating costs associated with the assets, the efficiency and availability of the assets and generating units, and the future market and price for energy and capacity over the remaining life of the assets.  In particular, the remaining assets of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to further impairment in connection with the closure and sale of its nuclear power plants. Moreover, prior to the closure and sale of these plants, the failure of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to achieve forecasted operating results and cash flows, an unfavorable change in forecasted operating results or cash flows, a reduction in the expected remaining useful life of a unit, or a decline in observable industry market multiples could all result in potential additional impairment charges for the affected assets.

If Entergy concludes that any of its nuclear power plants is unlikely to operate through its planned shutdown date, which conclusion would be based on a variety of factors, such a conclusion could result in a further impairment of part or all of the carrying value of the plant.  Any impairment charge taken by Entergy with respect to effectuateits long-lived assets, including the restructuring.remaining power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, would likely be material in the quarter that the charge is taken and could otherwise have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. For further information regarding evaluating long-lived assets for impairment, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates - Impairment of Long-lived Assets” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries and for further discussion of the impairment charges, see Note 14 to the financial statements.

Production Cost Allocation Rider


Entergy Arkansas has in place an APSC-approved production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of System Agreement proceedings.

Entergy Louisiana

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Louisiana’s rate schedules include a fuel adjustment clause designed to recover the cost of fuel and purchased power costs.  The fuel adjustment clause contains a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense and related carrying charges arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings related to audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Louisiana received approval from the LPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Louisiana historically hedged approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year.  The hedge quantity was reviewed on an annual basis. In January 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC to suspend these seasonal hedging programs and implement financial hedges with terms up to five years for a portion of its natural gas exposure, which was approved in November 2018.

Entergy Louisiana’s gas rates include a purchased gas adjustment clause based on estimated gas costs for the billing month adjusted by a surcharge or credit that arises from an annual reconciliation of fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Retail Rates - Gas

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the
245

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of the upper end of the earnings band as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s filings to recover storm-related costs.

Other

In March 2016 the LPSC opened two dockets to examine, on a generic basis, issues that it identified in connection with its review of Cleco Corporation’s acquisition by third party investors.  The first docket is captioned “In re: Investigation of double leveraging issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities,” and the second is captioned “In re: Investigation of tax structure issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities.”  In April 2016 the LPSC clarified that the concerns giving rise to the two dockets arose as a result of its review of the structure of the Cleco-Macquarie transaction and that the specific intent of the directives is to seek more information regarding intra-corporate debt financing of a utility’s capital structure as well as the use of investment tax credits to mitigate the tax obligation at the parent level of a consolidated entity.  No schedule has been set for either docket, and limited discovery has occurred.

In December 2019 an LPSC commissioner issued an unopposed directive to staff to research customer-centered options for all customer classes, as well as other regulatory environments, and recommend a plan for how to ensure customers are the focus. There was no opposition to the directive from other commissioners but several remarked that the intent of the directive was not initiated to pursue retail open access. In furtherance of the directive, the LPSC issued a notice of the opening of a docket to conduct a rulemaking to research and evaluate customer-centered options for all electric customer classes as well as other regulatory environments in January 2020.

Entergy Mississippi

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include energy cost recovery riders to recover fuel and purchased power costs.  The energy cost rate for each calendar year is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery of the energy costs as of the 12-month period ended September 30.  Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to annual audits conducted pursuant to the authority of the MPSC.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Mississippi received approval from the MPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Mississippi hedges approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year.  The hedge quantity is reviewed on an annual basis.

246

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings regarding recovery of Entergy Mississippi’s storm-related costs.

Formula Rate Plan

In August 2012 the MPSC opened inquiries to review whether the current formulaic methodology used to calculate the return on common equity in both Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan and Mississippi Power Company’s annual formula rate plan was still appropriate or could be improved to better serve the public interest. The intent of this inquiry and review was for informational purposes only; the evaluation of any recommendations for changes to the existing methodology would take place in a general rate case or in the existing formula rate plan proceeding. In March 2013 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed its consultant’s report which noted the return on common equity estimation methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company are commonly used throughout the electric utility industry. The report suggested ways in which the methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company might be improved, but did not recommend specific changes in the return on common equity formulas or calculations at that time. In June 2014 the MPSC expanded the scope of the August 2012 inquiry to study the merits of adopting a uniform formula rate plan that could be applied, where possible in whole or in part, to both Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company in order to achieve greater consistency in the plans. The MPSC directed the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff to investigate and review Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan rider schedule and Mississippi Power Company’s Performance Evaluation Plan by considering the merits and deficiencies and possibilities for improvement of each and then to propose a uniform formula rate plan that, where possible, could be applicable to both companies. No procedural schedule has been set. In October 2014 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff conducted a public technical conference to discuss performance benchmarking and its potential application to the electric utilities’ formula rate plans. The docket remains open.

Entergy New Orleans

Fuel Recovery

Entergy New Orleans’s electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment tariff designed to reflect no more than targeted fuel and purchased power costs, adjusted by a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel and purchased power costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges.

To help stabilize gas costs, Entergy New Orleans seeks approval annually from the City Council to continue implementation of its natural gas hedging program consistent with the City Council’s stated policy objectives.  The program uses financial instruments to hedge exposure to volatility in the wholesale price of natural gas purchased to serve Entergy New Orleans gas customers.  Entergy New Orleans hedges up to 25% of actual gas sales made during the winter months.

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s efforts to recover storm-related costs.

247

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Energy Efficiency Programs

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  The rate settlement provided an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provided a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In January 2015 the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart program from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted and when new rates from the 2018 combined rate case, which includes a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect. In December 2017 the City Council approved an energy efficiency cost recovery rider as an interim funding mechanism for Energy Smart, subject to verification that no additional funding sources exist. In June 2018 the City Council also approved a resolution recommending that Entergy New Orleans allocate approximately $13.5 million of benefits resulting from the Tax Act to Energy Smart. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2020 through December 2022.

Entergy Texas

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including interest, that are not included in base rates.  Semi-annual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in fuel mix.  The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT.  The PUCT fuel cost proceedings are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements.

At the PUCT’s April 2013 open meeting, the PUCT Commissioners discussed their view that a purchased power capacity rider was good public policy. The PUCT issued an order in May 2013 adopting the rule allowing for a purchased power capacity rider, subject to an offsetting adjustment for load growth. The rule, as adopted, also includes a process for obtaining pre-approval by the PUCT of purchased power agreements. Entergy Texas has not exercised the option to recover its capacity costs under the new rider mechanism, but will continue to evaluate the benefits of utilizing the new rider to recover future capacity costs.

Electric Industry Restructuring

In June 2009, a law was enacted in Texas that required Entergy Texas to cease all activities relating to Entergy Texas’s transition to competition.  The law allows Entergy Texas to remain a part of the SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC) Region, although it does not prevent Entergy Texas from joining another power region.  The law provides that proceedings to certify a power region that Entergy Texas belongs to as a qualified power region can be initiated by the PUCT, or on motion by another party, when the conditions supporting such a proceeding
248

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

exist.  Under the law, the PUCT may not approve a transition to competition plan for Entergy Texas until the expiration of four years from the PUCT’s certification of Entergy Texas’s power region.

The law also contains provisions that allow Entergy Texas to take advantage of a cost recovery mechanism that permits annual filings for the recovery of reasonable and necessary expenditures for transmission infrastructure improvement and changes in wholesale transmission charges.  This mechanism was previously available to other non-ERCOT Texas utility companies, but not to Entergy Texas.

The law further amended already existing law that had required Entergy Texas to propose for PUCT approval a tariff to allow eligible customers the ability to contract for competitive generation.  The amending language in the law provides, among other things, that:  1) the tariff shall not be implemented in a manner that harms the sustainability or competitiveness of manufacturers who choose not to participate in the tariff; 2) Entergy Texas shall “purchase competitive generation service, selected by the customer, and provide the generation at retail to the customer;” and 3) Entergy Texas shall provide and price transmission service and ancillary services under that tariff at a rate that is unbundled from its cost of service.  The law directs that the PUCT may not issue an order on the tariff that is contrary to an applicable decision, rule, or policy statement of a federal regulatory agency having jurisdiction.

The PUCT determined that unrecovered costs that may be recovered through the rider consist only of those costs necessary to implement and administer the competitive generation program and do not include lost revenues or embedded generation costs.  The amount of customer load that may be included in the competitive generation service program is limited to 115 MW.

In September 2011 the PUCT adopted a proposed rule implementing a distribution cost recovery factor to recover capital and capital-related costs related to distribution infrastructure.  The distribution cost recovery factor permits utilities once per year to implement an increase or decrease in rates above or below amounts reflected in base rates to reflect depreciation expense, federal income tax and other taxes, and return on investment.  The distribution cost recovery factor rider may be changed a maximum of four times between base rate cases.

In September 2019 the PUCT initiated a rulemaking to promulgate a generation cost recovery factor rule, implementing legislation passed in the 2019 Texas legislative session intended to allow electric utilities to recover generation investments between base rate proceedings.  The PUCT approved the final rule in July 2020.

Franchises

Entergy Arkansas holds exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 308 incorporated cities and towns in Arkansas.  These franchises are unlimited in duration and continue unless the municipalities purchase the utility property.  In Arkansas franchises are considered to be contracts and, therefore, are terminable pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement and applicable statutes.

Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 175 incorporated municipalities and in the unincorporated areas of approximately 59 parishes of Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide natural gas service to customers in the City of Baton Rouge and in East Baton Rouge Parish.  Municipal franchise agreement terms range from 25 to 60 years while parish franchise terms range from 25 to 99 years.

Entergy Mississippi has received from the MPSC certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide electric service to areas within 45 counties, including a number of municipalities, in western Mississippi.  Under Mississippi statutory law, such certificates are exclusive.  Entergy Mississippi may continue to serve in such municipalities upon payment of a statutory franchise fee, regardless of whether an original municipal franchise is still in existence.

249

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans provides electric and gas service in the City of New Orleans pursuant to indeterminate permits set forth in city ordinances.  These ordinances contain a continuing option for the City of New Orleans to purchase Entergy New Orleans’s electric and gas utility properties.

Entergy Texas holds a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PUCT to provide electric service to areas within approximately 27 counties in eastern Texas, and holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 68 incorporated municipalities.  Entergy Texas typically obtains 25-year franchise agreements as existing agreements expire.  Entergy Texas’s electric franchises expire over the period 2020-2058.

The business of System Energy is limited to wholesale power sales.  It has no distribution franchises.

Property and Other Generation Resources

Owned Generating Stations

The total capability of the generating stations owned and leased by the Utility operating companies and System Energy as of December 31, 2020, is indicated below:
 Owned and Leased Capability MW(a)
CompanyTotalGas/OilNuclearCoalHydroSolar
Entergy Arkansas5,175 2,091 1,817 1,194 73 — 
Entergy Louisiana11,317 8,827 2,144 346 — — 
Entergy Mississippi3,347 2,929 — 416 — 
Entergy New Orleans665 638 — — — 27 
Entergy Texas2,260 2,005 — 255 — — 
System Energy1,256 — 1,256 — — — 
Total24,020 16,490 5,217 2,211 73 29 

(a)“Owned and Leased Capability” is the dependable load carrying capability as demonstrated under actual operating conditions based on the primary fuel (assuming no curtailments) that each station was designed to utilize.

Summer peak load for the Utility has averaged 21,591 MW over the previous decade.

The Utility operating companies’ load and capacity projections are reviewed periodically to assess the need and timing for additional generating capacity and interconnections. These reviews consider existing and projected demand, the availability and price of power, the location of new load, the economy, Entergy’s clean energy and other public policy goals, environmental regulations, and the age and condition of Entergy’s existing infrastructure.

The Utility operating companies’ long-term resource strategy (Portfolio Transformation Strategy) calls for the bulk of capacity needs to be met through long-term resources, whether owned or contracted. Over the past decade, the Portfolio Transformation Strategy has resulted in the addition of about 8,801 MW of new long-term resources and the deactivation of about 4,664 MW of legacy generation. As MISO market participants, the Utility operating companies also participate in MISO’s Day Ahead and Real Time Energy and Ancillary Services markets to economically dispatch generation and purchase energy to serve customers reliably and at the lowest reasonable cost.

250

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Generation Resources

RFP Procurements

The Utility operating companies from time to time issue requests for proposals (RFP) to procure supply-side resources from sources other than the spot market to meet the unique regional needs of the Utility operating companies. The RFPs issued by the Utility operating companies have sought resources needed to meet near-term MISO reliability requirements as well as long-term requirements through a broad range of wholesale power products, including limited-term (1 to 3 years) and long-term contractual products and asset acquisitions. The RFP process has resulted in selections or acquisitions, including, among other things:

Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 980 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (previously referred to as the St. Charles generating facility) at its existing Little Gypsy electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in May 2019;
Entergy Texas’s construction of the 993 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Montgomery County Power Station at its existing Lewis Creek electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in January 2021;
Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 994 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Lake Charles generating facility at its existing Nelson electric generating station site. The facility began commercial operation in March 2020;
In October 2018, Entergy Mississippi signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Sunflower County, Mississippi. Entergy Mississippi received regulatory approval from the MPSC in April 2020, and the facility is scheduled to be in service by early 2022;
In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 800 acres in White County near Searcy, Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas received regulatory approval from the APSC in April 2020 and the facility is scheduled to be in service by the end of 2021;
Entergy New Orleans received regulatory approval in August 2019 to construct the New Orleans Solar Station (a 20 MW self-build solar project) located at the NASA Michoud Facility.The facility was placed in service in December 2020;
In June 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Lee County, Arkansas. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2022;
In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 180 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,500 acres in Crittenden County, Arkansas. In January 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023; and
In June 2020, Entergy Texas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,200 acres in Liberty County near Dayton, Texas.In September 2020, Entergy Texas filed a petition with the PUCT seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals.Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023.

251

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The RFP process has also resulted in the selection, or confirmation of the economic merits of, long-term purchased power agreements (PPAs), including, among others:

River Bend’s 30% life-of-unit PPA between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans for 100 MW related to Entergy Louisiana’s unregulated portion of the River Bend nuclear station, which portion was formerly owned by Cajun;
Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale base load capacity life-of-unit PPAs executed in 2003 totaling approximately 220 MW between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana (110 MW) and between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy New Orleans (110 MW) related to the sale of a portion of Entergy Arkansas’s coal and nuclear base load resources (which had not been included in Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates);
In May 2011, Entergy Texas and Calpine Energy Services, L.P. executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana purchases 50% of the facility’s capacity and energy from Entergy Texas. In July 2014, LS Power purchased the Carville Energy Center and replaced Calpine Energy Services as the counterparty to the agreement;
In September 2012, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 28 MW, with the potential to purchase an additional 9 MW when available, from Rain CII Carbon LLC’s petroleum coke calcining facility in Sulphur, Louisiana. The facility began commercial operation in May 2013. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with the facility;
In March 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 8.5 MW from Agrilectric Power Partners, LP’s refurbished rice hull-fueled electric generation facility located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with Agrilectric;
In September 2013, Entergy Louisiana executed a 10-year agreement with TX LFG Energy, LP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Montauk Energy Holdings, LLC, to purchase approximately 3 MW from its landfill gas-fueled power generation facility located in Cleveland, Texas;
Entergy Mississippi’s cost-based purchase, beginning in January 2013, of 90 MW from Entergy Arkansas’s share of Grand Gulf (only 60 MW of this PPA came through the RFP process). Cost recovery for the 90 MW was approved by the MPSC in January 2013;
In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas and Stuttgart Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 81 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generation facility located near Stuttgart, Arkansas. The APSC approved the project and deliveries pursuant to that agreement commenced in June 2018;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and LS Power executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and will begin in June 2022;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and Occidental Chemical Corporation executed a 10-year agreement for 500 MW from the Taft Cogeneration facility located in Hahnville, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and began in June 2018;
In June 2017, Entergy Arkansas and Chicot Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 100 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Chicot County, Arkansas. The transaction received regulatory approval and the PPA began in November 2020;
In February 2018, Entergy Louisiana and LA3 West Baton Rouge, LLC (Capital Region Solar project) executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in February 2019 and the PPA began in October 2020;
In July 2018, Entergy New Orleans and St. James Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 20 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021;
In August 2018, Entergy Louisiana and South Alexander Development I, LLC executed a five-year agreement for 5 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The PPA began in December 2020 and received regulatory approval in January 2021;
252

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

In February 2019, Entergy New Orleans and Iris Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Washington Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021; and
In August 2020, Entergy Texas and Umbriel Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 150 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Polk County, Texas.The PPA is expected to start when the facility reaches commercial operation in 2023.

In April 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Texas, issued an RFP for combined-cycle gas turbine capacity and energy resources. The RFP was seeking up to 1,000 MW - 1,200 MW of capacity, capacity-related benefits, energy, other electric products, and environmental attributes, if any, from a single generation resource located in the “Eastern Region” of Entergy Texas’s service area. In December 2020, Entergy Texas posted notice that it has elected to proceed with the self-build alternative, Orange County Power Station. The self-build alternative will be conditioned on receipt of required internal and regulatory approvals.

In June 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Louisiana, issued an RFP for solar photovoltaic resources. The RFP was seeking 300 MW of energy, capacity, capacity-related benefits, other electric products, and environmental attributes from eligible new-build solar photovoltaic generation resources. In December 2020, Entergy Louisiana concluded evaluations of the RFP. Three proposals have been placed on the primary selection list and two proposals have been placed on the secondary selection list. Negotiations are currently in progress.

In January 2021, Entergy Texas provided notice that it intends to issue an RFP for solar generation resources. The RFP is seeking a minimum of 200 MW through a combination of build-own-transfer agreements, self-build alternatives, and power purchase agreements that can provide cost-effective energy supply, fuel diversity, and other benefits to Entergy Texas customers.

Other Procurements From Third Parties

The Utility operating companies have also made resource acquisitions outside of the RFP process, including Entergy Mississippi’s January 2006 acquisition of the 480 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Attala power plant; Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s March 2008 acquisition of the 322 MW, simple-cycle, gas-fired Calcasieu Generating Facility; Entergy Louisiana’s April 2011 acquisition of the 580 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Acadia Energy Center Unit 2; Entergy Arkansas’s (Power Block 2), Entergy Louisiana’s (Power Blocks 3 and 4), and Entergy New Orleans’s (Power Block 1) March 2016 acquisitions of the 1,980 MW (summer rating), natural gas-fired, combined-cycle gas turbine Union Power Station power blocks, each rated at 495 MW (summer rating); and Entergy Mississippi’s October 2019 acquisition of the 810 MW, combined-cycle, natural gas-fired Choctaw Generating Station. The Utility operating companies have also entered into various limited- and long-term contracts in recent years as a result of bilateral negotiations.

The Washington Parish Energy Center is a 361 MW natural gas-fired peaking power plant approximately 60 miles north of New Orleans on a site Entergy Louisiana purchased from Calpine in 2019. In May 2018, Entergy Louisiana received LPSC approval of its certification application for this simple-cycle power plant to be developed pursuant to an agreement between Calpine and Entergy Louisiana. Calpine began construction on the plant in early 2019 and Entergy Louisiana purchased the plant upon completion in November 2020.

The Hardin County Peaking Facility is an existing 147 MW simple-cycle gas-fired peaking power plant in Kountze, Texas, owned by East Texas Electric Cooperative. Entergy Texas is currently seeking regulatory certification to move forward with the purchase of the facility. The facility has been in operation since January 2010.


253

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Power Through Program

In December 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to amend its certificate of convenience and necessity to own and operate up to 75 MW of natural gas-fired distributed generation that is to be installed at commercial and industrial customer premises. If approved, Entergy Texas would own and operate a fleet of generators ranging from 100 kW to 10 MW that would supply a portion of Entergy Texas’s long-term resource needs and enhance the resiliency of Entergy Texas’s electric grid. This fleet of generators would also be available to customers during outages to supply backup electric service as part of a program known as “Power Through.”

Interconnections

The Utility operating companies’ generating units are interconnected to a transmission system operating at various voltages up to 500 kV.  These generating units consist of steam-electric production facilities, combustion-turbine generators, pressurized and boiling water nuclear reactors, and inverter-based technologies operating in the MISO energy and ancillary services market. Entergy’s Utility operating companies are MISO market participants and are interconnected with many neighboring utilities.  MISO is an essential link in the safe, cost-effective delivery of electric power across all or parts of 15 U.S. states and the Canadian province of Manitoba. As a Regional Transmission Organization, MISO assures consumers of unbiased regional grid management and open access to the transmission facilities under MISO’s functional supervision. In addition, the Utility operating companies are members of SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). SERC is a nonprofit corporation responsible for promoting and improving the reliability, adequacy, and critical infrastructure of the bulk power supply systems in all or portions of 16 central and southeastern states.SERC serves as a regional entity with delegated authority from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) for the purpose of proposing and enforcing Bulk Electric System reliability standards within the SERC Region.

Gas Property

As of December 31, 2020, Entergy New Orleans distributed and transported natural gas for distribution within New Orleans, Louisiana, through approximately 2,600 miles of gas pipeline.  As of December 31, 2020, the gas properties of Entergy Louisiana, which are located in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, were not material to Entergy Louisiana’s financial position.

Title

The Utility operating companies’ generating stations are generally located on properties owned in fee simple.  Most of the substations and transmission and distribution lines are constructed on private property or public rights-of-way pursuant to easements, servitudes, or appropriate franchises.  Some substation properties are owned in fee simple.  The Utility operating companies generally have the right of eminent domain, whereby they may perfect title to, or secure easements or servitudes on, private property for their utility operations.

Substantially all of the physical properties and assets owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy are subject to the liens of mortgages securing bonds issued by those companies.  The Lewis Creek generating station of Entergy Texas was acquired by merger with a subsidiary of Entergy Texas and is currently not subject to the lien of the Entergy Texas indenture.


254

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Fuel Supply

The sources of generation and average fuel cost per kWh for the Utility operating companies and System Energy for the years 2018-2020 were:
 Natural GasNuclearCoalPurchased PowerMISO Purchases
Year% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh
202047 1.92 29 0.57 2.54 4.36 13 2.48 
201940 2.33 28 0.73 2.31 4.86 18 2.71 
201839 2.84 27 0.84 2.24 5.23 17 3.71 

Actual 2020 and projected 2021 sources of generation for the Utility operating companies and System Energy, including certain power purchases from affiliates under life of unit power purchase agreements, including the Unit Power Sales Agreement, are:
 Natural GasNuclearCoalPurchased Power (d)MISO Purchases (e)
 2020202120202021202020212020202120202021
Entergy Arkansas (a)24 %35 %60 %51 %10 %13 %%%%— 
Entergy Louisiana51 %59 %26 %27 %%%%12 %13 %— 
Entergy Mississippi (b)73 %69 %14 %22 %%%— — %— 
Entergy New Orleans (b)55 %56 %33 %40 %%%%%%— 
Entergy Texas39 %60 %11 %13 %%%23 %21 %25 %— 
System Energy (c)— — 100 %100 %— — — — — — 
Utility (a) (b)47 %55 %29 %31 %%%%%13 %— 

(a)Hydroelectric power provided less than 1% of Entergy Arkansas’s generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of its generation in 2021.
(b)Solar power provided less than 1% of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of each of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2021.
(c)Capacity and energy from System Energy’s interest in Grand Gulf is allocated as follows under the Unit Power Sales Agreement: Entergy Arkansas - 36%; Entergy Louisiana - 14%; Entergy Mississippi - 33%; and Entergy New Orleans - 17%.  Pursuant to purchased power agreements, Entergy Arkansas is selling a portion of its owned capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.
(d)Excludes MISO purchases.
(e)In December 2013, Entergy integrated its transmission system into the MISO RTO. Entergy offers all of its generation into the MISO energy market on a day-ahead and real-time basis and bids for power in the MISO energy market to serve the demand of its customers, with MISO making dispatch decisions. The MISO purchases metric provided for 2020 is not projected for 2021.

Some of the Utility’s gas-fired plants are also capable of using fuel oil, if necessary. Although based on current economics the Utility does not expect fuel oil use in 2021, it is possible that various operational events including weather or pipeline maintenance may require the use of fuel oil.

Natural Gas

The Utility operating companies have long-term firm and short-term interruptible gas contracts for both supply and transportation. Over 50% of the Utility operating companies’ power plants maintain some level of long-
255

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

term firm transportation. Short-term contracts and spot-market purchases satisfy additional gas requirements.  Entergy Texas owns a gas storage facility that provides reliable and flexible natural gas service to certain generating stations.

Many factors, including wellhead deliverability, storage, pipeline capacity, and demand requirements of end users, influence the availability and price of natural gas supplies for power plants.  Demand is primarily tied to weather conditions as well as to the prices and availability of other energy sources.  Pursuant to federal and state regulations, gas supplies to power plants may be interrupted during periods of shortage.  To the extent natural gas supplies are disrupted or natural gas prices significantly increase, the Utility operating companies may in some instances use alternate fuels, such as oil when available, or rely to a larger extent on coal, nuclear generation, and purchased power.

Coal

Entergy Arkansas has committed to seven one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 85% of the total coal supply needs in 2021.  These contracts are staggered in term so that not all contracts have to be renewed the same year.  The remaining 15% of total coal requirements will be satisfied by contracts with a term of less than one year.  Based on continued improved Powder River Basin (PRB) coal deliveries by rail and the high cost of alternate sources and modes of transportation, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Entergy Arkansas during 2021.  Coal will be transported to Arkansas via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Arkansas’s rail transportation requirements for 2021.

Entergy Louisiana has committed to five one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 90% of Nelson Unit 6 coal needs in 2021.  If needed, additional PRB coal will be purchased through contracts with a term of less than one year to provide the remaining supply needs.  For the same reasons as for Entergy Arkansas’s plants, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Nelson Unit 6 during 2021.  Coal will be transported to Nelson primarily via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Louisiana’s rail transportation requirements for 2021.

For the year 2020, coal transportation delivery rates to Entergy Arkansas-and Entergy Louisiana-operated coal-fired units were adequate to meet supply needs and obligations, and it is expected that delivery times in 2021 will continue to be consistent. Both Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana control a sufficient number of railcars to satisfy the rail transportation requirement.

The operator of Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3, Louisiana Generating, LLC, has advised Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas that it has adequate rail car and barge capacity to meet the volumes of PRB coal requested for 2021.  Entergy Louisiana’s and Entergy Texas’s coal nomination requests to Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3 are made on an annual basis.

Nuclear Fuel

The nuclear fuel cycle consists of the following:

mining and milling of uranium ore to produce a concentrate;
conversion of the concentrate to uranium hexafluoride gas;
enrichment of the uranium hexafluoride gas;
fabrication of nuclear fuel assemblies for use in fueling nuclear reactors; and
disposal of spent fuel.

The Registrant Subsidiaries that own nuclear plants, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, are responsible through a shared regulated uranium pool for contracts to acquire nuclear material to be used in fueling Entergy’s Utility nuclear units.  These companies own the materials and services in this shared regulated
256

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

uranium pool on a pro rata fractional basis determined by the nuclear generation capability of each company.  Any liabilities for obligations of the pooled contracts are on a several but not joint basis.  The shared regulated uranium pool maintains inventories of nuclear materials during the various stages of processing.  The Registrant Subsidiaries purchase enriched uranium hexafluoride for their nuclear plant reload requirements at the average inventory cost from the shared regulated uranium pool.  Entergy Operations, Inc. contracts separately for the fabrication of nuclear fuel as agent on behalf of each of the Registrant Subsidiaries that owns a nuclear plant.  All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and the owner of a nuclear power plant.

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, the Utility nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable or fixed prices through most of 2023. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners.  There are a number of possible supply alternatives that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, including potentially drawing upon Entergy’s inventory intended for later generation periods depending upon its risk management strategy at that time, although the pricing of any alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time.  In addition, some nuclear fuel contracts are on a non-fixed price basis subject to prevailing prices at the time of delivery.

The effects of market price changes may be reduced and deferred by risk management strategies, such as negotiation of floor and ceiling amounts for long-term contracts, buying for inventory or entering into forward physical contracts at fixed prices when Entergy believes it is appropriate and useful.  Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S.

Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. There are fewer of these providers than for uranium. For conversion and enrichment services, like uranium, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures as needed to ensure supply of enriched uranium for the reliable fabrication of nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the effective performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel, therefore, Entergy provides additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight for the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy each have made arrangements to lease nuclear fuel and related equipment and services.  The lessors, which are consolidated in the financial statements of Entergy and the applicable Registrant Subsidiary, finance the acquisition and ownership of nuclear fuel through credit agreements and the issuance of notes.  These credit facilities are subject to periodic renewal, and the notes are issued periodically, typically for terms between three and seven years.

Natural Gas Purchased for Resale

Entergy New Orleans has several suppliers of natural gas.  Its system is interconnected with one interstate and three intrastate pipelines.  Entergy New Orleans has a “no-notice” service gas purchase contract with CenterPoint Energy Services which guarantees Entergy New Orleans gas delivery at specific delivery points and at any volume within the minimum and maximum set forth in the contract amounts.  The CenterPoint Energy Service gas supply is transported to Entergy New Orleans pursuant to a transportation service agreement with Gulf South Pipeline Co.  This service is subject to FERC-approved rates.  Entergy New Orleans also makes interruptible spot market purchases.

Entergy Louisiana purchased natural gas for resale in 2020 under a firm contract from Sequent Energy Management L.P.  The gas is delivered through a combination of intrastate and interstate pipelines.

257

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

As a result of the implementation of FERC-mandated interstate pipeline restructuring in 1993, curtailments of interstate gas supply could occur if Entergy Louisiana’s or Entergy New Orleans’s suppliers failed to perform their obligations to deliver gas under their supply agreements.  Gulf South Pipeline Co. could curtail transportation capacity only in the event of pipeline system constraints.

Federal Regulation of the Utility

State or local regulatory authorities, as described above, regulate the retail rates of the Utility operating companies.  The FERC regulates wholesale sales of electricity rates and interstate transmission of electricity, including System Energy’s sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of federal regulation proceedings.

System Agreement (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Prior to each operating company’s termination of participation in the System Agreement (Entergy Arkansas in December 2013, Entergy Mississippi in November 2015, and Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each in August 2016), the Utility operating companies engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which was a rate schedule approved by the FERC. Under the terms of the System Agreement, generating capacity and other power resources were jointly operated by the Utility operating companies that were participating in the System Agreement.  The System Agreement provided, among other things, that parties having generating reserves greater than their allocated share of reserves (long companies) would receive payments from those parties having generating reserves that were less than their allocated share of reserves (short companies).  Such payments were at amounts sufficient to cover certain of the long companies’ costs for intermediate and peaking oil/gas-fired generation, including operating expenses, fixed charges on debt, dividend requirements on preferred equity, and a fair rate of return on common equity investment.  Under the System Agreement, the rates used to compensate long companies were based on costs associated with the long companies’ steam electric generating units fueled by oil or gas and having an annual average heat rate above 10,000 Btu/kWh.  In addition, for all energy exchanged among the Utility operating companies under the System Agreement, the companies purchasing exchange energy were required to pay the cost of fuel consumed in generating such energy plus a charge to cover other associated costs.

Although the System Agreement has terminated, certain of the Utility operating companies’ and their retail regulators are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC and in federal courts. The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and other matters. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of legal proceedings at the FERC and in federal courts involving the System Agreement.

Transmission and MISO Markets

In December 2013 the Utility operating companies integrated into the MISO RTO. Although becoming a member of MISO did not affect the ownership by the Utility operating companies of their transmission facilities or the responsibility for maintaining those facilities, MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. MISO also exercises functional control of transmission planning and congestion management and provides schedules and pricing for the commitment and dispatch of generation that is offered into MISO’s markets, as well as pricing for load that bids into the markets. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a bilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. Each Utility operating company has its own transmission pricing zone and a formula rate template (included as Attachment O to the MISO tariff) used to
258

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

establish transmission rates within MISO. The terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs, are subject to regulation by the FERC.

System Energy and Related Agreements

System Energy recovers costs related to its interest in Grand Gulf through rates charged to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans for capacity and energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (described below).  In July 2001 a rate proceeding commenced by System Energy at the FERC in 1995 became final, with the FERC approving a prospective 10.94% return on equity.    In 1998 the FERC approved requests by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi to accelerate a portion of their Grand Gulf purchased power obligations.  Entergy Arkansas’s and Entergy Mississippi’s acceleration of Grand Gulf purchased power obligations ceased effective July 2001 and July 2003, respectively, as approved by the FERC. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of complaints filed with the FERC regarding System Energy’s return on equity.

Unit Power Sales Agreement

The Unit Power Sales Agreement allocates capacity, energy, and the related costs from System Energy’s ownership and leasehold interests in Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas (36%), Entergy Louisiana (14%), Entergy Mississippi (33%), and Entergy New Orleans (17%).  Each of these companies is obligated to make payments to System Energy for its entitlement of capacity and energy on a full cost-of-service basis regardless of the quantity of energy delivered.  Payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are System Energy’s only source of operating revenue.  The financial condition of System Energy depends upon the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf and the receipt of such payments.  Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans generally recover payments made under the Unit Power Sales Agreement through rates charged to their customers.

In the case of Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana, payments are also recovered through sales of electricity from their respective retained shares of Grand Gulf.  Under a settlement agreement entered into with the APSC in 1985 and amended in 1988, Entergy Arkansas retains 22% of its 36% share of Grand Gulf-related costs and recovers the remaining 78% of its share in rates.  In the event that Entergy Arkansas is not able to sell its retained share to third parties, it may sell such energy to its retail customers at a price equal to its avoided cost, which is currently less than Entergy Arkansas’s cost from its retained share.  Entergy Arkansas has life-of-resources purchased power agreements with Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans that sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s retained share of Grand Gulf to those companies, with the remainder of the retained share being sold to Entergy Mississippi through a separate life-of-resources purchased power agreement.  In a series of LPSC orders, court decisions, and agreements from late 1985 to mid-1988, Entergy Louisiana was granted rate relief with respect to costs associated with Entergy Louisiana’s share of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf, subject to certain terms and conditions.  Entergy Louisiana retains and does not recover from retail ratepayers 18% of its 14% share of the costs of Grand Gulf capacity and energy and recovers the remaining 82% of its share in rates.  Entergy Louisiana is allowed to recover through the fuel adjustment clause at 4.6 cents per kWh for the energy related to its retained portion of these costs.  Alternatively, Entergy Louisiana may sell such energy to non-affiliated parties at prices above the fuel adjustment clause recovery amount, subject to the LPSC’s approval. Entergy Arkansas also has a life-of-resources purchased power agreement with Entergy Mississippi to sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s non-retained share of Grand Gulf. Entergy Mississippi was granted rate relief for those purchases by the MPSC through its annual unit power cost rate mechanism.

Availability Agreement

The Availability Agreement among System Energy and Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans was entered into in 1974 in connection with the financing by System Energy
259

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

of Grand Gulf. The Availability Agreement provides that System Energy make available to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans all capacity and energy available from System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans also agreed severally to pay System Energy monthly for the right to receive capacity and energy from Grand Gulf in amounts that (when added to any amounts received by System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement) would at least equal System Energy’s total operating expenses for Grand Gulf (including depreciation at a specified rate and expenses incurred in a permanent shutdown of Grand Gulf) and interest charges.

The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement are fixed as follows: Entergy Arkansas - 17.1%; Entergy Louisiana - 26.9%; Entergy Mississippi - 31.3%; and Entergy New Orleans - 24.7%. The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement would remain in effect and would govern payments made under such agreement in the event of a shortfall of funds available to System Energy from other sources, including payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

System Energy has assigned its rights to payments and advances from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under the Availability Agreement as security for its two outstanding series of first mortgage bonds.  In these assignments, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans further agreed that, in the event they were prohibited by governmental action from making payments under the Availability Agreement (for example, if the FERC reduced or disallowed such payments as constituting excessive rates), they would then make subordinated advances to System Energy in the same amounts and at the same times as the prohibited payments. System Energy would not be allowed to repay these subordinated advances so long as it remained in default under the related indebtedness or in other similar circumstances.

Each of the assignment agreements relating to the Availability Agreement provides that Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans will make payments directly to System Energy. However, if there is an event of default, those payments must be made directly to the holders of indebtedness that are the beneficiaries of such assignment agreements. The payments must be made pro rata according to the amount of the respective obligations secured.

The obligations of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans to make payments under the Availability Agreement are subject to the receipt and continued effectiveness of all necessary regulatory approvals.  Sales of capacity and energy under the Availability Agreement would require that the Availability Agreement be submitted to the FERC for approval with respect to the terms of such sale. No such filing with the FERC has been made because sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf are being made pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement.  If, for any reason, sales of capacity and energy are made in the future pursuant to the Availability Agreement, the jurisdictional portions of the Availability Agreement would be submitted to the FERC for approval.

Since commercial operation of Grand Gulf began, payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement to System Energy have exceeded the amounts payable under the Availability Agreement and, therefore, no payments under the Availability Agreement have ever been required.  If Entergy Arkansas or Entergy Mississippi fails to make its Unit Power Sales Agreement payments, and System Energy is unable to obtain funds from other sources, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans could become subject to claims or demands by System Energy or its creditors for payments or advances under the Availability Agreement (or the assignments thereof) equal to the difference between their required Unit Power Sales Agreement payments and their required Availability Agreement payments because their Availability Agreement obligations exceed their Unit Power Sales Agreement obligations.

The Availability Agreement may be terminated, amended, or modified by mutual agreement of the parties thereto, without further consent of any assignees or other creditors.
260

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Service Companies

Entergy Services, a limited liability company wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation, provides management, administrative, accounting, legal, engineering, and other services primarily to the Utility operating companies, but also provides services to Entergy Wholesale Commodities. Entergy Operations is also wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation and provides nuclear management, operations and maintenance services under contract for ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, subject to the owner oversight of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, respectively.  Entergy Services and Entergy Operations provide their services to the Utility operating companies and System Energy on an “at cost” basis, pursuant to cost allocation methodologies for these service agreements that were approved by the FERC.

Jurisdictional Separation of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. into Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas

Effective December 31, 2007, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. completed a jurisdictional separation into two vertically integrated utility companies, one operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the PUCT, Entergy Texas, and the other operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the LPSC, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana.  Entergy Texas owns all Entergy Gulf States, Inc. distribution and transmission assets located in Texas, the gas-fired generating plants located in Texas, undivided 42.5% ownership shares of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.’s 70% ownership interest in Nelson Unit 6 and 42% ownership interest in Big Cajun 2, Unit 3, which are coal-fired generating plants located in Louisiana, and other assets and contract rights to the extent related to utility operations in Texas.  Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, owns all of the remaining assets that were owned by Entergy Gulf States, Inc.  On a book value basis, approximately 58.1% of the Entergy Gulf States, Inc. assets were allocated to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and approximately 41.9% were allocated to Entergy Texas.

Entergy Texas purchases from Entergy Louisiana pursuant to a life-of-unit purchased power agreement a 42.5% share of capacity and energy from the 70% of River Bend subject to retail regulation.  Entergy Texas was allocated a share of River Bend’s nuclear and environmental liabilities that is identical to the share of the plant’s output purchased by Entergy Texas under the purchased power agreement.  In connection with the termination of the System Agreement effective August 31, 2016, the purchased power agreements that were put in place for certain legacy units at the time of the jurisdictional separation were also terminated at that time. See Note 2 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the purchased power agreements.

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” (Entergy Louisiana). With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana.

261

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans Internal Restructuring

In November 2017, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans, Inc. undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy New Orleans, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which included a call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. converted from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2017, Entergy New Orleans, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Group, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power then changed its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC. Entergy New Orleans, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Arkansas Internal Restructuring

In November 2018, Entergy Arkansas undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $32.7 million.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. converted from an Arkansas corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Arkansas, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Arkansas Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Arkansas Power), and Entergy Arkansas Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Arkansas Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Property, Inc., and Entergy Arkansas Power then changed its name to Entergy Arkansas, LLC. Entergy Arkansas, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. The transaction was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Mississippi Internal Restructuring

In November 2018, Entergy Mississippi undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy Mississippi, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock, at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $21.2 million.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. converted from a Mississippi corporation to a Texas corporation.
262

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Mississippi, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Mississippi Power and Light), and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Mississippi, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Mississippi, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Mississippi, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Enterprises, Inc., and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light then changed its name to Entergy Mississippi, LLC. Entergy Mississippi, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Mississippi, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants, located in the northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities revenues are primarily derived from sales of energy and generation capacity from these plants. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also provides operations and management services, including decommissioning-related services, to nuclear power plants owned by non-affiliated entities in the United States. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers.

See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.

Property

Nuclear Generating Stations

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership of the following nuclear power plants:
Power PlantMarketIn Service YearAcquiredLocationCapacity - Reactor TypeLicense Expiration Date
Indian Point 3 (a)NYISO1976Nov. 2000Buchanan, NY1,041 MW - Pressurized Water2025 (a)
Indian Point 2 (a)NYISO1974Sept. 2001Buchanan, NY1,028 MW - Pressurized Water2024 (a)
Palisades (b)MISO1971Apr. 2007Covert,
MI
811 MW - Pressurized Water2031 (b)

(a)Power operations ceased at the Indian Point 2 plant in April 2020. The fuel was permanently removed from the reactor vessel and placed in the spent fuel pool in May 2020. The Indian Point 3 plant is expected to cease operations on April 30, 2021. Entergy and Holtec jointly filed a license transfer application with the NRC in November 2019, requesting approval for the transfer of the Indian Point plants, along with their nuclear decommissioning trusts and decommissioning liabilities, from Entergy to Holtec. The NRC approved the license transfer application on November 23, 2020.
263

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

(b)The Palisades plant is expected to cease operations on May 31, 2022. There is a contract to sell the plant to Holtec subject to NRC and other regulatory approvals.

See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of two non-operating nuclear facilities, Big Rock Point in Michigan and Indian Point 1 in New York that were acquired when Entergy purchased the Palisades and Indian Point 2 nuclear plants, respectively. These facilities are in various stages of the decommissioning process. Both Big Rock Point and Indian Point 1 are under contract to be sold with their respective plants.

Non-nuclear Generating Stations

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, or interests in joint ventures that own, the following non-nuclear power plants:
PlantLocationOwnershipNet Owned Capacity (a)Type
Independence Unit 2;   842 MWNewark, AR14%    121 MW(b)Coal
RS Cogen;   425 MW (c)Lake Charles, LA50%213 MWGas/Steam
Nelson Unit 6;   550 MWWestlake, LA11%       60 MW(b)Coal

(a)“Net Owned Capacity” refers to the nameplate rating on the generating unit.
(b)The owned MW capacity is the portion of the plant capacity owned by Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  For a complete listing of Entergy’s jointly-owned generating stations, refer to “Jointly-Owned Generating Stations” in Note 1 to the financial statements.
(c)Indirectly owned through an interest in an unconsolidated joint venture. In December 2020, Entergy’s wholly-owned subsidiary with a direct interest in RS Cogen, LLC entered into a membership interest purchase agreement with a subsidiary of the other 50% equity partner to sell its 50% membership interest in the joint venture to the equity partner. The targeted closing date for the transaction is October 2022.

Independent System Operators

The Indian Point plants fall under the authority of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). The Palisades plant falls under the authority of the MISO. The primary purpose of NYISO and MISO is to direct the operations of the major generation and transmission facilities in their respective regions; ensure grid reliability; administer and monitor wholesale electricity markets; and plan for their respective region’s energy needs.

Energy and Capacity Sales

As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy in the day ahead or spot markets.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities also sells unforced capacity, which allows load-serving entities to meet specified reserve and related requirements placed on them by the ISOs in their respective areas.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward physical power contracts consist of contracts to sell energy only, contracts to sell capacity only, and bundled contracts in which it sells both capacity and energy.  While the terminology and payment mechanics vary in these contracts, each of these types of contracts requires Entergy Wholesale Commodities to deliver MWh of energy, make capacity available, or both.See “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for additional information regarding these contracts.

264

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

As part of the purchase of the Palisades plant in 2007, Entergy executed a 15-year PPA with the seller, Consumers Energy, for 100% of the plant’s output, excluding any future uprates. Under the purchased power agreement, Consumers Energy receives the value of any new environmental credits for the first ten years of the agreement. Palisades and Consumers Energy will share on a 50/50 basis the value of any new environmental credits for years 11 through 15 of the agreement. The environmental credits are defined as benefits from a change in law that causes capability of the plant as of the purchase date to become a tradable attribute (e.g., emission credit, renewable energy credit, environmental credit, “green” credit, etc.) or otherwise to have a market value. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on May 31, 2022 and transfer to Holtec thereafter.

Customers

Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ customers for the sale of both energy and capacity from its nuclear plants include retail power providers, utilities, electric power co-operatives, power trading organizations, and other power generation companies. These customers include Consumers Energy, the company from which Entergy purchased the Palisades plant, and NYISO and MISO. Substantially all the credit exposure associated with the planned energy output under contract for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants is with counterparties or their guarantors that have public investment grade credit ratings.

Competition

The NYISO market is highly competitive. Entergy Wholesale Commodities has numerous competitors in New York including generation companies affiliated with regulated utilities, other independent power producers, municipal and co-operative generators, owners of co-generation plants and wholesale power marketers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities is an independent power producer, which means it generates power for sale to third parties at day ahead or spot market prices to the extent that the power is not sold under a fixed price contract. Municipal and co-operative generators also generate power but use most of it to deliver power to their municipal or co-operative power customers. Owners of co-generation plants produce power primarily for their own consumption. Wholesale power marketers do not own generation; rather they buy power from generators or other market participants and resell it to retail providers or other market participants. Competition in the New York power market is affected by, among other factors, the amount of generation and transmission capacity in these markets. MISO does not have a centralized clearing capacity market, but load serving entities do meet most of their capacity needs through bilateral contracts and self-supply with a smaller portion coming through voluntary MISO auctions. Almost all of Palisades’ current output is contracted to Consumers Energy through May 2022. Entergy Wholesale Commodities does not expect to be materially affected by competition in the MISO market in the near term.

Seasonality

Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues and operating income are subject to fluctuations during the year due to seasonal factors, weather conditions, and contract pricing. When outdoor and cooling water temperatures are low, generally during colder months, Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants operate more efficiently, and consequently, generate more electricity. Many of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contracts provide for shaped pricing over the course of the year. As a result of these factors, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues are typically higher in the first and third quarters than in the second and fourth quarters.

Fuel Supply

Nuclear Fuel

See “Fuel Supply - Nuclear Fuel” in the Utility portion of Part I, Item 1 for a discussion of the nuclear fuel cycle and markets. Entergy Nuclear Fuels Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, is responsible for contracts to acquire nuclear materials, except for fuel fabrication, for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants,
265

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

while Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. acts as the agent for the purchase of nuclear fuel assembly fabrication services. All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and each of the nuclear power plant owners. The nuclear fuel supply portfolio for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment has been adjusted to reflect reduced overall requirements related to the planned permanent shutdowns of the Indian Point 3 and Palisades plants. Fuel procurement for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment was primarily limited to the requirements of the Palisades plant’s final refueling in 2020.

Other Business Activities

Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC (ENPM) was formed in 2005 to centralize the power marketing function for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants. Upon its formation, ENPM entered into long-term power purchase agreements with the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries that own nuclear power plants (generating subsidiaries). As part of a series of agreements, ENPM agreed to assume and/or otherwise service the existing power purchase agreements that were in effect between the generating subsidiaries and their customers. ENPM’s functions include origination of new energy and capacity transactions and generation scheduling.

Services provided by either Entergy Nuclear, Inc. or other Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries include engineering, operations and maintenance, fuel procurement, management and supervision, technical support and training, administrative support, and other managerial or technical services required to operate, maintain, and decommission nuclear electric power facilities.

TLG Services, a subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment, offers decommissioning, engineering, and related services to nuclear power plant owners.

Entergy provides plant operation support services for the 800 MW Cooper Nuclear Station located near Brownville, Nebraska. In 2010 an Entergy subsidiary signed an agreement to extend the management support services to Cooper Nuclear Station by 15 years, through January 2029.

Regulation of Entergy’s Business

Federal Power Act

The Federal Power Act provides the FERC the authority to regulate:

the transmission and wholesale sale of electric energy in interstate commerce;
the reliability of the high voltage interstate transmission system through reliability standards;
sale or acquisition of certain assets;
securities issuances;
the licensing of certain hydroelectric projects;
certain other activities, including accounting policies and practices of electric and gas utilities; and
changes in control of FERC jurisdictional entities or rate schedules.

The Federal Power Act gives the FERC jurisdiction over the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf capacity and energy provided to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans and over the rates charged by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana to unaffiliated wholesale customers. The FERC also regulates wholesale power sales between the Utility operating companies. In addition, the FERC regulates the MISO RTO, an independent entity that maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy, capacity, and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. FERC regulation of the MISO RTO includes regulation of the design and implementation of the wholesale markets administered by the MISO RTO, as well as the rates, terms, and conditions of open access transmission service over the member systems and the allocation of costs associated with transmission upgrades.
266

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Entergy Arkansas holds a FERC license that expires in 2053 for two hydroelectric projects totaling 70 MW of capacity.

State Regulation

Utility

Entergy Arkansas is subject to regulation by the APSC as to the following:

utility service;
utility service areas;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery rider;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
the acquisition, sale, or lease of any public utility plant or property constituting an operating unit or system;
certificates of convenience and necessity and certificates of environmental compatibility and public need, as applicable, for generating and transmission facilities;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering;
integrated resource planning;
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control; and
the issuance and sale of certain securities.

Additionally, Entergy Arkansas serves a limited number of retail customers in Tennessee. Pursuant to legislation enacted in Tennessee, Entergy Arkansas is subject to complaints before the Tennessee Regulatory Authority only if it fails to treat its retail customers in Tennessee in the same manner as its retail customers in Arkansas. Additionally, Entergy Arkansas maintains limited facilities in Missouri but does not provide retail electric service to customers in Missouri. Although Entergy Arkansas obtained a certificate with respect to its Missouri facilities, Entergy Arkansas is not subject to retail ratemaking or other regulatory jurisdiction in Missouri.

Entergy Louisiana’s electric and gas business is subject to regulation by the LPSC as to the following:

utility service;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment clause and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission projects;
certification of capacity acquisitions, both for owned capacity and purchase power contracts;
procurement process to acquire over 50 MW;
audits of the environmental adjustment charge, avoided cost payment to Qualifying Facilities, and energy efficiency rider;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.

Entergy Mississippi is subject to regulation by the MPSC as to the following:

utility service;
utility service areas;
267

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery mechanism;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of generating facilities and certain transmission projects;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers, acquisitions, and other changes of control.

Entergy Mississippi is also subject to regulation by the APSC as to the certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the Independence Station, which is located in Arkansas.

Entergy New Orleans is subject to regulation by the City Council as to the following:

utility service;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment charge and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
audit of the environmental adjustment charge;
certification of the construction or extension of any new plant, equipment, property, or facility that comprises more than 2% of the utility’s rate base;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering;
issuance and sale of certain securities; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.

To the extent authorized by governing legislation, Entergy Texas is subject to the original jurisdiction of the municipal authorities of a number of incorporated cities in Texas with appellate jurisdiction over such matters residing in the PUCT.  Entergy Texas is also subject to regulation by the PUCT as to the following:

retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates, and terms and conditions of service in unincorporated areas of its service territory, and in municipalities that have ceded jurisdiction to the PUCT;
fuel recovery, including reconciliations (audits) of the fuel adjustment charges;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission and generation projects;
utility service areas, including extensions into new areas;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers, sales/acquisitions/leases of plants over $10 million, sales of greater than 50% voting stock of utilities, and transfers of controlling interest in or operation of utilities.

268

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the operation of nuclear plants is heavily regulated by the NRC, which has broad power to impose licensing and safety-related requirements.  The NRC has broad authority to impose civil penalties or shut down a unit, or both, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, as owners of all or portions of ANO, River Bend and Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively, and Entergy Operations, as the licensee and operator of these units, are subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC. Entergy subsidiaries in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment are subject to the NRC’s jurisdiction as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, Palisades, and Big Rock Point.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

Spent Nuclear Fuel

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy Arkansas is the only one of the Utility operating companies that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and has a recorded liability as of December 31, 2020 of $192.0 million for the one-time fee. Entergy accepted assignment of the Pilgrim, FitzPatrick, Indian Point 3, Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2, Vermont Yankee, Palisades, and Big Rock Point spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE held by their previous owners. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the sale of the plant, completed in March 2017. The Vermont Yankee spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to NorthStar as part of the sale of the plant in January 2019. The Pilgrim spent fuel disposal contract was transferred to Holtec as part of the sale of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company in August 2019. The owners of these plants previous to Entergy have paid or retained liability for the fees for all generation prior to the purchase dates of those plants. The fees payable to the DOE may be adjusted in the future to assure full recovery.  Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense.  Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants.  Entergy’s total spent fuel fees to date, including the one-time fee liability of Entergy Arkansas, have surpassed $1.6 billion (exclusive of amounts relating to Entergy plants that were paid or are owed by prior owners of those plants).

The permanent spent fuel repository in the U.S. has been legislated to be Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing (the DOE filed the license application in June 2008) and, after the license is granted by the NRC, proceed with the repository construction and commencement of receipt of spent fuel. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. The DOE continues to delay meeting its obligation. Specific steps were taken to discontinue the Yucca Mountain project, including a motion to the NRC to withdraw the license application with prejudice and the establishment of a commission to develop recommendations for alternative spent fuel storage solutions. In August 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the NRC to continue with the Yucca Mountain license review, but only to the extent of funds previously appropriated by Congress for that purpose and not yet used. Although the NRC completed the safety evaluation report for the license review in 2015, the previously appropriated funds are not sufficient to complete the review, including required hearings. The government has taken no effective action to date related to the recommendations of the appointed spent fuel study commission. Accordingly, large uncertainty remains regarding the time frame under
269

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

which the DOE will begin to accept spent fuel from Entergy’s facilities for storage or disposal. As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at Entergy’s nuclear sites.

Following the defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014.

As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. These subsidiaries have been, and continue to be, involved in litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2018, 2019, and 2020 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries’ litigation with the DOE. Through 2020, Entergy’s subsidiaries won and collected on judgments against the government totaling approximately $800 million.

Pending DOE acceptance and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the owners of nuclear plants are providing their own spent fuel storage.  Storage capability additions using dry casks began operations at Palisades in 1993, at ANO in 1996, at River Bend in 2005, at Grand Gulf in 2006, at Indian Point in 2008, and at Waterford 3 in 2011.  These facilities will be expanded as needed.

Nuclear Plant Decommissioning

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for ANO, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively.  In addition, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for the portion of River Bend subject to retail rate regulation. The collections are deposited in trust funds that can only be used in accordance with NRC and other applicable regulatory requirements.  Entergy periodically reviews and updates the estimated decommissioning costs to reflect inflation and changes in regulatory requirements and technology, and then makes applications to the regulatory authorities to reflect, in rates, the changes in projected decommissioning costs.

In December 2018 the APSC ordered collections in rates for decommissioning ANO 2 and found that ANO 1’s decommissioning was adequately funded without additional collections. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a revised decommissioning cost recovery tariff for ANO indicating that both ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning trusts were adequately funded without further collections, and in December 2020, the APSC ordered zero collections for ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning.

In July 2010 the LPSC approved increased decommissioning collections for Waterford 3 and the Louisiana regulated share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls. This LPSC decision contemplated that the level of decommissioning collections could be revisited should the NRC grant license extensions for both Waterford 3 and River Bend. In July 2019, following the NRC approval of license extensions for Waterford 3 and River Bend, Entergy Louisiana made a filing with the LPSC seeking to adjust decommissioning and depreciation rates for those plants, including one proposed scenario that would adjust Louisiana-jurisdictional decommissioning collections to zero for both plants (including an offsetting increase in depreciation rates). Because of the ongoing public health emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying economic uncertainty, Entergy Louisiana determined that the relief sought in the filing was no longer appropriate, and in November 2020, filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the proceeding. Following that filing, in a December 2020 order, the LPSC dismissed the proceeding without prejudice.
270

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


In December 2010 the PUCT approved increased decommissioning collections for the Texas share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls.  In December 2018 the PUCT approved a settlement that eliminated River Bend decommissioning collections for the Texas jurisdictional share of the plant based on a determination by Entergy Texas that the existing decommissioning fund was adequate following license renewal.

In September 2016 the NRC issued a 20-year operating license renewal for Grand Gulf. In a 2017 filing at the FERC, System Energy stated that with the renewed operating license, Grand Gulf’s decommissioning trust was sufficiently funded, and proposed, among other things, to cease decommissioning collections for Grand Gulf effective October 1, 2017. The FERC accepted a settlement including the proposed decommissioning revenue requirement by letter order in August 2018.

Entergy currently believes its decommissioning funding will be sufficient for its nuclear plants subject to retail rate regulation, although decommissioning cost inflation and trust fund performance will ultimately determine the adequacy of the funding amounts.

In January 2019, Entergy sold 100% of the membership interest in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to a subsidiary of NorthStar. As a result of the sale, NorthStar assumed ownership of Vermont Yankee and its decommissioning and site restoration trusts, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of Vermont Yankee decommissioning costs and see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the NorthStar transaction.

In August 2019, Entergy sold 100% of the equity interests in Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, LLC to a subsidiary of Holtec International. As a result of the sale, Holtec assumed ownership of Pilgrim and its decommissioning trust, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale.

For the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants purchased in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust funds and the decommissioning liabilities with the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume each of the decommissioning liabilities provided that it assigns the corresponding decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to the Entergy subsidiaries.  In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy, which was completed in January 2017. In March 2017, Entergy sold the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon, and as part of the transaction, the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund, along with the decommissioning obligation for that plant, was transferred to Exelon. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the transaction. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the FitzPatrick sale.

In March 2020 filings with the NRC were made reporting on decommissioning funding for all of Entergy subsidiaries’ nuclear plants.  Those reports showed that decommissioning funding for each of the nuclear plants met the NRC’s financial assurance requirements.

Additional information with respect to Entergy’s decommissioning costs and decommissioning trust funds is found in Note 9 and Note 16 to the financial statements.

Price-Anderson Act

The Price-Anderson Act requires that reactor licensees purchase and maintain the maximum amount of nuclear liability insurance available and participate in an industry assessment program called Secondary Financial Protection in order to protect the public in the event of a nuclear power plant accident.  The costs of this insurance
271

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

are borne by the nuclear power industry.  Congress amended and renewed the Price-Anderson Act in 2005 for a term through 2025.  The Price-Anderson Act limits the contingent liability for a single nuclear incident to a maximum assessment of approximately $137.6 million per reactor (with 97 nuclear industry reactors currently participating).  In the case of a nuclear event in which Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, or an Entergy Wholesale Commodities company is liable, protection is afforded through a combination of private insurance and the Secondary Financial Protection program. In addition to this, insurance for property damage, costs of replacement power, and other risks relating to nuclear generating units is also purchased.  The Price-Anderson Act and insurance applicable to the nuclear programs of Entergy are discussed in more detail in Note 8 to the financial statements.

NRC Reactor Oversight Process

The NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process is a program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response. The NRC evaluates plant performance by analyzing two distinct inputs: inspection findings resulting from the NRC’s inspection program and performance indicators reported by the licensee. The evaluations result in the placement of each plant in one of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix columns: “licensee response column,” or Column 1, “regulatory response column,” or Column 2, “degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 3, and “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4. Plants in Column 1 are subject to normal NRC inspection activities. Plants in Column 2, Column 3, or Column 4 are subject to progressively increasing levels of inspection by the NRC with, in general, progressively increasing levels of associated costs. The nuclear generating plants owned and operated by Entergy’s Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses are currently in Column 1, except for Grand Gulf, which is currently in Column 2.

In November 2020 the NRC placed Grand Gulf in Column 2 based on the incidence of three unplanned plant scrams during the second and third quarters of 2020.Two of the scram events related to new turbine control system components that failed, and a third related to a feedwater valve positioner that failed, all of which had been replaced in a refueling outage that ended in May 2020. The NRC plans to conduct a supplemental inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 2. As a consequence of two additional Grand Gulf scrams during the fourth quarter 2020, System Energy expects Grand Gulf to be placed into NRC Column 3 based on plant performance indicators for the four quarters ended December 31, 2020. This will involve an additional supplemental NRC inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 3.

Environmental Regulation

Entergy’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.  Management believes that Entergy’s businesses are in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted below.  Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance requirements and costs cannot be precisely estimated.  Except to the extent discussed below, at this time compliance with federal, state, and local provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise protecting the environment, is incorporated into the routine cost structure of Entergy’s businesses and is not expected to have a material effect on their competitive position, results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

272

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Clean Air Act and Subsequent Amendments

The Clean Air Act and its amendments establish several programs that currently or in the future may affect Entergy’s fossil-fueled generation facilities and, to a lesser extent, certain operations at nuclear and other facilities.  Individual states also operate similar independent state programs or delegated federal programs that may include requirements more stringent than federal regulatory requirements.  These programs include:

New source review and preconstruction permits for new sources of criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and significant modifications to existing facilities;
Acid rain program for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx);
Nonattainment area programs for control of criteria air pollutants, which could include fee assessments for air pollutant emission sources under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act if attainment is not reached in a timely manner;
Hazardous air pollutant emissions reduction programs;
Interstate Air Transport;
Operating permit programs and enforcement of these and other Clean Air Act programs;
Regional Haze programs; and
New and existing source standards for greenhouse gas and other air emissions.

New Source Review (NSR)

Preconstruction permits are required for new facilities and for existing facilities that undergo a modification that results in a significant net emissions increase and is not classified as routine repair, maintenance, or replacement.  Units that undergo certain non-routine modifications must obtain a permit modification and may be required to install additional air pollution control technologies. In December 2020 the EPA amended the NSR regulations to clarify when a physical change or change in the method of operation will constitute such a modification. Entergy has an established process for identifying modifications requiring additional permitting approval and is monitoring the regulations and associated guidance provided by the states and the federal government with regard to the determination of routine repair, maintenance, and replacement.  Several years ago, however, the EPA implemented an enforcement initiative, aimed primarily at coal plants, to identify modifications that it does not consider routine for which the unit did not obtain a modified permit.  Various courts and the EPA have been inconsistent in their judgments regarding modifications that are considered routine and on other legal issues that affect this program.

In February 2011, Entergy received a request from the EPA for several categories of information concerning capital and maintenance projects at the White Bluff and Independence facilities, both located in Arkansas, in order to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act, including NSR requirements and air permits issued by the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). In August 2011, Entergy’s Nelson facility, located in Louisiana, received a similar request for information from the EPA. In September 2015 an additional request for similar information was received for the White Bluff facility. Entergy responded to all requests. None of these EPA requests for information alleged that the facilities were in violation of law.

In January and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Independence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. In November 2018, following extensive negotiations, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Power entered a proposed settlement resolving those claims as well as other issues facing Entergy Arkansas’s fossil generation plants. The settlement, which formally resolves a complaint filed by the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In October 2019 the District Court requested supplemental briefing on several issues to be resolved prior to addressing the motion to approve the
273

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

settlement; that briefing was completed in May 2020. For further information about the settlement, see “Regional Haze” discussed below.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide, and requires periodic review of those standards. When an area fails to meet an ambient standard, it is considered to be in nonattainment and is classified as “marginal,” “moderate,” “serious,” or “severe.” When an area fails to meet the ambient air standard, the EPA requires state regulatory authorities to prepare state implementation plans meant to cause progress toward bringing the area into attainment with applicable standards.

Ozone Nonattainment

Entergy Texas operates two fossil-fueled generating facilities (Lewis Creek and Montgomery County Power Station) in a geographic area that is not in attainment with the applicable NAAQS for ozone.  The ozone nonattainment area that affects Entergy Texas is the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area.  Both Lewis Creek and the Montgomery County Power Station hold all necessary permits for construction and operation and comply with applicable air quality program regulations. Measures enacted to return the area to ozone attainment could make these program regulations more stringent. Entergy will continue to work with state environmental agencies on appropriate methods for assessing attainment and nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS.

Potential SO2Nonattainment

The EPA issued a final rule in June 2010 adopting an SO2 1-hour national ambient air quality standard of 75 parts per billion.  In Entergy’s utility service territory, only St. Bernard Parish and Evangeline Parish in Louisiana are designated as nonattainment. In August 2017 the EPA issued a letter indicating that East Baton Rouge and St. Charles parishes would be designated by December 31, 2020, as monitors were installed to determine compliance. In December 2020 the EPA designated East Baton Rouge, St. Charles, St. James, and West Baton Rouge parishes in Louisiana as attainment/unclassifiable, and, in Texas, Jefferson County as attainment/unclassifiable and Orange County as unclassifiable. Challenges to these final designations must be filed within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register. Entergy continues to monitor this situation.

Hazardous Air Pollutants

The EPA released the final Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule in December 2011, which had a compliance date, with a widely granted one-year extension, of April 2016. The required controls have been installed and are operational at all affected Entergy units. In May 2020 the EPA finalized a rule that finds that it is not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants from electric steam generating units under the provisions of section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act. This is a reversal of the EPA’s previous finding requiring such regulation. The final appropriate and necessary finding does not revise the underlying MATS rule. Several lawsuits have been filed challenging the appropriate and necessary finding. Entergy will continue to monitor this situation.

Cross-State Air Pollution

In March 2005 the EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was intended to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from electric generation plants in order to improve air quality in twenty-nine eastern states. The rule required a combination of capital investment to install pollution control equipment and increased operating costs through the purchase of emission allowances. Entergy began implementation in 2007, including installation of controls at several facilities and the development of an emission allowance procurement strategy.

274

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Based on several court challenges, CAIR and its subsequent versions, now known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), have been remanded to and modified by the EPA on multiple occasions. In September 2016 the EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Starting in 2017 the final rule requires reductions in summer nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Several states, including Arkansas and Texas, filed a challenge to the Update Rule. In September 2019 the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA’s underlying approach to the Update Rule, but determined that it was inconsistent with the Clean Air Act because it failed to include deadlines consistent with downwind states’ deadlines for attainment. The court remanded the rule to the EPA for further consideration, but did not vacate so the rule remains in effect pending the EPA’s further review. In October 2020 the EPA issued its proposal intended to address the D.C. Circuit’s remand. The draft rule proposes to finalize interstate transport obligations for 21 states. For nine states, including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas, the EPA proposes that additional emission reductions are not necessary. For 12 states, however, including Louisiana, the EPA proposes additional emission reductions through proposed reductions in the number of NOx emission allowances allocated to each state. Entergy, through its various trade associations, filed comments on the proposal and will continue to monitor the rulemaking and its potential impact on its facilities in Louisiana. If the October 2020 proposal is finalized, ozone season NOx emissions may become more expensive in Louisiana.

Regional Haze

In June 2005 the EPA issued its final Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) regulations that potentially could result in a requirement to install SO2 and NOx pollution control technology as Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART) to continue operating certain of Entergy’s fossil generation units.  The rule leaves certain CAVR determinations to the states.

In Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) prepared a state implementation plan (SIP) for Arkansas facilities to implement its obligations under the CAVR.   In April 2012 the EPA finalized a decision addressing the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, in which it disapproved a large portion of the Arkansas plan, including the emission limits for NOx and SO2 at White Bluff.  In April 2015 the EPA published a proposed federal implementation plan (FIP) for Arkansas, taking comment on requiring installation of scrubbers and low NOx burners to continue operating both units at the White Bluff plant and both units at the Independence plant and NOx controls to continue operating the Lake Catherine plant. Entergy filed comments by the deadline in August 2015. Among other comments, including opposition to the EPA’s proposed controls on the Independence units, Entergy proposed to meet more stringent SO2 and NOx limits at both White Bluff and Independence within three years of the effective date of the final FIP and to cease the use of coal at the White Bluff units at a later date.

In September 2016 the EPA published the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP. In most respects, the EPA finalized its original proposal but shortened the time for compliance for installation of the NOx controls. The FIP required an emission limitation consistent with SO2 scrubbers at both White Bluff and Independence by October 2021 and NOx controls by April 2018. The EPA declined to adopt Entergy’s proposals related to ceasing coal use as an alternative to SO2 scrubbers for White Bluff SO2 BART. In November 2016, Entergy and other interested parties, including the State of Arkansas, filed petitions for administrative reconsideration and stay at the EPA as well as petitions for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit granted the stay pending settlement discussions and pending the State’s development of a SIP that, if approved by the EPA, would replace the FIP. The state had proposed its replacement SIP in two parts: Part I considers NOx requirements, and Part II considers SO2 requirements. The EPA approved the Part I NOx SIP in January 2018. The Part I SIP requires that Entergy address NOx impacts on visibility via compliance with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ozone-season emission trading program. Arkansas has finalized a Part II SIP which has been approved by the EPA but is currently pending a state court appeal. That appeal has been stayed pending the outcome of a federal court case, which may resolve many of the issues on appeal. The final Part II SIP requires that Entergy achieve SO2 emission reductions via the use of low-sulfur coal at both White Bluff and Independence within three years. The
275

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Part II SIP also requires that Entergy cease to use coal at White Bluff by December 31, 2028 and notes the current planning assumption that Entergy’s Independence units will cease to use coal by December 31, 2030.

In January and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Independence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. In November 2018, following extensive negotiations, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Power entered a proposed settlement resolving those claims and reducing the risk that Entergy Arkansas, as operator of Independence and White Bluff, might be compelled under the Clean Air Act’s regional haze program to install costly emissions control technologies. Consistent with the terms of the settlement and in many cases also the Part II SIP, Entergy Arkansas, along with co-owners, will begin using only low-sulfur coal at Independence and White Bluff by mid-2021; cease to use coal at White Bluff and Independence by the end of 2028 and 2030, respectively; cease operation of the remaining gas unit at Lake Catherine by the end of 2027; reserve the option to develop new generating sources at each plant site; and commit to install or propose to regulators at least 800 MWs of renewable generation by the end of 2027, with at least half installed or proposed by the end of 2022 (which includes two existing Entergy Arkansas projects) and with all qualifying co-owner projects counting toward satisfaction of the obligation. Under the settlement, the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association also waive certain potential existing claims under federal and state environmental law with respect to specified generating plants. The settlement, which formally resolves a complaint filed by the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The EPA, which is allowed to comment on such a settlement agreement, has stated that it has no objections to the settlement. In November 2020 the court denied motions by the Arkansas Attorney General and the Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition to intervene and to stay the proceedings. The proposed intervenors did not appeal the ruling. Still pending before the court is a motion by the plaintiffs to approve the settlement, in support of which Entergy made a filing. The Arkansas Attorney General also filed an application before the APSC in December 2018 seeking an investigation into the effects of the settlement. The Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition filed to support the Arkansas Attorney General’s application, and Entergy Arkansas filed a motion to dismiss it. The application remains pending before the APSC. In October 2019 the District Court requested supplemental briefing on several issues prior to addressing the motion to approve the settlement; that briefing concluded in May 2020.

In Louisiana, Entergy has worked with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the EPA to revise the Louisiana SIP for regional haze, which had been disapproved in part in 2012. The LDEQ submitted a revised SIP in February 2017. In May 2017 the EPA proposed to approve a majority of the revisions. In September 2017 the EPA issued a proposed SIP approval for the Nelson plant, requiring an emission limitation consistent with the use of low-sulfur coal, with a compliance date of January 22, 2021. The EPA issued final approval in December 2017. The EPA approval was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In October 2019 the Fifth Circuit affirmed the EPA’s SIP approval. A petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs was denied by the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiffs did not petition for further review by the Supreme Court.

The second planning period (2018-2028) for the regional haze program requires states to examine sources for impacts on visibility and to prepare SIPs by 2021. Entergy received information collection requests from Arkansas and Louisiana requesting an evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of various NOx and SO2 control technologies for Independence, Nelson 6, and Ninemile. Responses to the information requests have been submitted to the respective state agencies.

New and Existing Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In July 2019 the EPA released the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE), which applies only to existing coal-fired electric generating units. The ACE determines that heat rate improvements are the best system of emission reductions and lists six candidate technologies for consideration by states at each coal unit. The rule and associated rulemakings by the EPA replace the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which established
276

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

national emissions performance rates for existing fossil-fuel fired steam electric generating units and combustion turbines. The ACE rule provides states discretion in determining how the best system for emission reductions applies to individual units, including through the consideration of technical feasibility and the remaining useful life of the facility. The ADEQ and the LDEQ have issued information collection requests to Entergy facilities to help the states collect the information needed to determine the best system of emission reductions for each facility. Entergy responded to the requests and will continue to monitor litigation challenging the rule. In January 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated ACE. The court held that ACE relied on an incorrect interpretation of the Clean Air Act that the statute expressly forecloses emission reduction approaches, such as emissions trading and generating shifting, that cannot be applied at and to the individual source. The court remanded ACE to the EPA for further consideration and also vacated the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The vacatur will not be effective until the court issues its mandate which is being held until after disposition of any petitions for rehearing. Entergy is currently reviewing the court’s opinion.

In 2018 the EPA proposed a revision to the new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions that primarily impacts new coal units and, therefore, should not impact Entergy. In January 2021 the EPA finalized a pollutant-specific contribution finding for greenhouse gas emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed electric generating units. The rule establishes a three percent threshold for determining when a pollutant significantly contributes to air pollution and reaffirms the EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act Section 111(b) requires the EPA to make pollutant-specific significant contribution findings before promulgation of a new source performance standard. The EPA did not, however, finalize the new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions and intends to address the 2018 proposal in a future action.

Potential Legislative, Regulatory, and Judicial Developments

In addition to the specific instances described above, there are a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives concerning air emissions, as well as other media, that are under consideration at the federal, state, and local level.  Because of the nature of Entergy’s business, the imposition of any of these initiatives could affect Entergy’s operations.  Entergy continues to monitor these initiatives and activities in order to analyze their potential operational and cost implications.  These initiatives include:

designation by the EPA and state environmental agencies of areas that are not in attainment with national ambient air quality standards;
introduction of bills in Congress and development of regulations by the EPA proposing further limits on NOx, SO2, mercury, and carbon dioxide and other air emissions.  New legislation or regulations applicable to stationary sources could take the form of market-based cap-and-trade programs, direct requirements for the installation of air emission controls onto air emission sources, or other or combined regulatory programs;
efforts in Congress or at the EPA to establish a federal carbon dioxide emission tax, control structure, or unit performance standards;
revisions to the estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon and its use for regulatory impact analysis of federal laws and regulations;
implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative by several states in the northeastern United States and similar actions in other regions of the United States;
efforts on the local, state, and federal level to codify renewable portfolio standards, clean energy standards, or a similar mechanism requiring utilities to produce or purchase a certain percentage of their power from defined renewable energy sources or energy sources with lower emissions;
efforts to develop more stringent state water quality standards, effluent limitations for Entergy’s industry sector, stormwater runoff control regulations, and cooling water intake structure requirements;
efforts to restrict the previously-approved continued use of oil-filled equipment containing certain levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
efforts by certain external groups to encourage reporting and disclosure of environmental, social, and governance risk;
277

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

the listing of additional species as threatened or endangered, the protection of critical habitat for these species, and developments in the legal protection of eagles and migratory birds;
the regulation of the management, disposal, and beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals; and
the regulation of the management and disposal and recycling of equipment associated with renewable and clean energy sources such as used solar panels, wind turbine blades, hydrogen usage, or battery storage.

Entergy continues to support national legislation that would increase planning certainty for electric utilities while addressing carbon dioxide emissions in an economy-wide, responsible, and flexible manner.  By virtue of its proportionally large investment in low-emitting generation technologies, Entergy has a low overall carbon dioxide emission “intensity,” or rate of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt-hour of electricity generated.  In anticipation of the imposition of carbon dioxide emission limits on the electric industry, Entergy initiated actions designed to reduce its exposure to potential new governmental requirements related to carbon dioxide emissions.  These voluntary actions included a formal program to stabilize owned power plant carbon dioxide emissions at 2000 levels through 2005, and Entergy succeeded in reducing emissions below 2000 levels. In 2006, Entergy started including emissions from controllable power purchases in addition to its ownership share of generation and established a second formal voluntary program to stabilize power plant carbon dioxide emissions and emissions from controllable power purchases, cumulatively over the period, at 20% below 2000 levels through 2010.  In 2011, Entergy extended this commitment through 2020.  In 2020, Entergy succeeded in achieving its initial climate commitment to reduce carbon dioxide cumulative emissions by 20% from 2000 levels. Total carbon dioxide emissions representing Entergy’s ownership share of power plants and controllable power purchases in the United States were approximately 39.1 million tons in 2020 and 40.7 million tons in 2019. Since its original commitment in 2001, Entergy’s cumulative emissions are approximately 7.6% below its 2020 goal.

Entergy voluntarily conducted a climate scenario analysis and published a comprehensive report in March 2019. The report follows the framework and recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Disclosures, describing climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Scenario analyses resulted in Entergy developing and publishing a new goal of reducing the Utility’s emission rate by 50 percent from 2000 levels by 2030. In September 2020, Entergy committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, while continuing its commitment to grid reliability and affordability for customers. In December 2020, Entergy published a report regarding this long-term commitment that describes its approach and technology point-of-view. Technology research and development, innovation, and advancement are critical to Entergy’s ability to meet this climate commitment.

Entergy participates in the M.J. Bradley & Associates’ Annual Benchmarking Air Emissions Report, an annual analysis of the 100 largest U.S. electric power producers. The report is available on the M.J. Bradley website. Entergy’s annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory is also third-party verified, and that certification is made available on the American Carbon Registry website. Entergy participates annually in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and in 2020 was listed on the North American Index. Entergy has been listed on the World or North American Index, or both, for nineteen consecutive years. Entergy also participated in the 2020 CDP and CDP Water evaluations, receiving a ‘B’ for both responses.

Clean Water Act

The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act) provide the statutory basis for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program, section 402, and the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States.  The Clean Water Act requires virtually all discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to be permitted.  Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act regulates cooling water intake structures, section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a water quality certification from the state in support of certain federal actions and approvals, and section 404 regulates the dredge and fill of waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands.

278

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines

The 2015 Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) rule required, among other things, that there be no discharge of bottom ash transport water. In October 2020 the EPA issued its final rule revision on bottom ash transport water allowing the discharge of up to 10% system volume for certain purge waters, including storm events and non-routine operations. The final rule requires compliance as soon as possible beginning October 31, 2021, but no later than December 31, 2025. Several challenges to the final rule have been filed. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously vacated and remanded the provisions of the rule related to legacy wastewater and leachate, which the EPA plans to address in a separate rulemaking. Despite the final rule and pending challenges, Entergy is implementing projects at its White Bluff and Independence plants to convert to zero-discharge systems to comply with the ELG rule and the coal combustion residuals restrictions on impoundments. Additionally, the Nelson Unit 6 facility is implementing operational and maintenance measures to minimize the potential for discharge of bottom ash transport water from the existing bottom ash handling system at the site, and is reviewing the effectiveness of these changes for compliance with the requirements of the October 2020 final rule.

Federal Jurisdiction of Waters of the United States

In February 2019 the EPA published its proposed revised definition of Waters of the United States, which proposes to narrow the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, as compared to a 2015 definition which had been stayed by several federal courts. The final rule was released in January 2020 and effective in June 2020. In October 2019 the EPA repealed the 2015 rule and re-codified the pre-existing regulations. That rule was effective late December 2019. Numerous challenges have been filed against both rules.

Groundwater at Certain Nuclear Sites

The NRC requires nuclear power plants to monitor and report regularly the presence of radioactive material in the environment.  Entergy joined other nuclear utilities and the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2006 to develop a voluntary groundwater monitoring and protection program.  This initiative began after detection of very low levels of radioactive material, primarily tritium, in groundwater at several plants in the United States.  Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that occurs naturally and is also a byproduct of nuclear plant operations.  In addition to tritium, other radionuclides have been found in site groundwater at nuclear plants.

As part of the groundwater monitoring and protection program, Entergy has: (1) performed reviews of plant groundwater characteristics (hydrology) and historical records of past events on site that may have potentially impacted groundwater; (2) implemented fleet procedures on how to handle events that could impact groundwater; and (3) installed groundwater monitoring wells and began periodic sampling.  The program also includes protocols for notifying local officials if contamination is found.  To date, radionuclides such as tritium have been detected at Arkansas Nuclear One, Indian Point, Palisades, Grand Gulf, and River Bend.  Each of these sites has installed groundwater monitoring wells and implemented a program for testing groundwater at the sites for the presence of tritium and other radionuclides.  Based on current information, the concentrations and locations of radionuclides detected at these plants pose no threat to public health or safety, but each site continues to evaluate the results from its groundwater monitoring program.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), authorizes the EPA to mandate clean-up by, or to collect reimbursement of clean-up costs from, owners or operators of sites at which hazardous substances may be or have been released.  Certain private parties also may use CERCLA to recover response costs.  Parties that transported hazardous substances to these sites or arranged for the disposal of the substances are also deemed liable by CERCLA.  CERCLA has been interpreted to impose strict, joint, and several liability on responsible parties.  Many states have adopted programs similar to CERCLA.  Entergy subsidiaries in the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses have sent waste materials to various
279

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

disposal sites over the years, and releases have occurred at Entergy facilities including nuclear facilities that have been or will be sold to decommissioning companies.  In addition, environmental laws now regulate certain of Entergy’s operating procedures and maintenance practices that historically were not subject to regulation.  Some disposal sites used by Entergy subsidiaries have been the subject of governmental action under CERCLA or similar state programs, resulting in site clean-up activities.  Entergy subsidiaries have participated to various degrees in accordance with their respective potential liabilities in such site clean-ups and have developed experience with clean-up costs.  The affected Entergy subsidiaries have established provisions for the liabilities for such environmental clean-up and restoration activities.  Details of potentially material CERCLA and similar state program liabilities are discussed in the “Other Environmental Matters” section below.

Coal Combustion Residuals

In June 2010 the EPA issued a proposed rule on coal combustion residuals (CCRs) that contained two primary regulatory options: (1) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or received (including stored) in surface impoundments as so-called “special wastes” under the hazardous waste program of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C; or (2) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments as non-hazardous wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA.  Under both options, CCRs that are beneficially reused in certain processes would remain excluded from hazardous waste regulation. In April 2015 the EPA published the final CCR rule with the material being regulated under the second scenario presented above - as non-hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA Subtitle D.

The final regulations create new compliance requirements including modified storage, new notification and reporting practices, product disposal considerations, and CCR unit closure criteria.  Entergy believes that on-site disposal options will be available at its facilities, to the extent needed for CCR that cannot be transferred for beneficial reuse. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy has recorded asset retirement obligations related to CCR management of $20.1 million.

In December 2016 the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) was signed into law, which authorizes states to regulate coal ash rather than leaving primary enforcement to citizen suit actions. States may submit to the EPA proposals for a permit program.

Pursuant to the EPA Rule, Entergy operates groundwater monitoring systems surrounding its coal combustion residual landfills located at White Bluff, Independence, and Nelson. Monitoring to date has detected concentrations of certain listed constituents in the area, but has not indicated that these constituents originated at the active landfill cells. Reporting has occurred as required, and detection monitoring will continue as the rule requires. In late-2017, Entergy determined that certain in-ground wastewater treatment system recycle ponds at its White Bluff and Independence facilities require management under the new EPA regulations. Consequently, in order to move away from using the recycle ponds, White Bluff and Independence each have installed a new permanent bottom ash handling system that does not fall under the CCR rule. As of November 2020, both sites are operating the new system and no longer are sending waste to the recycle ponds. Each site has commenced closure of one of its two recycle ponds, with the remaining pond being held in reserve during initial operation of the new bottom ash handling system. Closure of the remaining recycle pond at each site will commence as soon as possible, but no later than April 11, 2021, which is the deadline under the finalized CCR rule to commence closure of any unlined recycle ponds. Any potential requirements for corrective action or operational changes under the new CCR rule continue to be assessed. Notably, ongoing litigation has resulted in the EPA’s continuing review of the rule. Consequently, the nature and cost of additional corrective action requirements may depend, in part, on the outcome of the EPA’s review.

280

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Environmental Matters

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas

Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, currently is involved in the second phase of the remedial investigation of the Lake Charles Service Center site, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  A manufactured gas plant (MGP) is believed to have operated at this site from approximately 1916 to 1931.  Coal tar, a by-product of the distillation process employed at MGPs, apparently was routed to a portion of the property for disposal.  The same area also has been used as a landfill.  In 1999, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. signed a second administrative consent order with the EPA to perform a removal action at the site.  Removal actions addressed contaminated source material, soil, and sediment and included capping certain soil on and off-site. In 2002 approximately 7,400 tons of contaminated soil and debris were excavated and disposed of from an area within the service center.  In 2003 a cap was constructed over the remedial area to prevent the migration of contamination to the surface.  In August 2005 an administrative order was issued by the EPA requiring that a 10-year groundwater study be conducted at this site.  The groundwater monitoring study commenced in January 2006.  The EPA released the second Five Year Review in 2015. In that review, the EPA indicated that the remediation technique was insufficient and that Entergy would need to utilize other remediation technologies on the site. In July 2015, Entergy submitted a Focused Feasibility Study to the EPA outlining the potential remedies and suggesting installation of the new remedial method, a waterloo barrier. The estimated cost for this remedy is approximately $2 million, to be allocated between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas.  In early 2017 the EPA indicated that the waterloo barrier may not be necessary and requested revisions to the Focused Feasibility Study. The EPA released the third Five Year Review in late-2019 confirming that a new remedial method is not necessary but requiring continuation of the current groundwater monitoring. The site’s remedy includes monitored natural attenuation of groundwater, and institutional controls to restrict groundwater and land use. The EPA has determined that no additional actions are needed for the remedy to be protective over the long-term, and the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) notified Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas that the TCEQ believes those entities are potentially responsible parties (PRPs) concerning contamination existing at the San Angelo Electric Service Company (SESCO) facility in San Angelo, Texas.  The facility operated as a transformer repair and scrapping facility from the 1930s until 2003.  Both soil and groundwater contamination existed at the site.  Entergy subsidiaries sent transformers to this facility.  Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy Texas responded to an information request from the TCEQ.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas joined a group of PRPs responding to site conditions in cooperation with the State of Texas, creating cost allocation models based on review of SESCO documents and employee interviews, and investigating contribution actions against other PRPs.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas have agreed to contribute to the remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at the site in a measure proportionate to those companies’ involvement at the site.  Current estimates, although variable depending on ultimate remediation design and performance, indicate that Entergy’s total share of remediation costs likely will be approximately $1.5 million to $2 million.  Groundwater monitoring wells at the site were plugged and abandoned in December 2019 following receipt of a certificate of completion issued by the TCEQ. Site decommissioning activities are complete and final disposition of the property will be determined at a later time.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Texas

The EPA notified Entergy that the EPA believes Entergy is a PRP concerning PCB contamination at the F.J. Doyle Salvage facility in Leonard, Texas. The facility operated as a scrap salvage business during the 1970s to the 1990s. In May 2018 the EPA investigated the site surface and sub-surface soils and, in November 2018 the EPA conducted a removal action, including disposal of PCB contaminated soils. Entergy responded to the EPA’s information requests in May and July 2019. In November 2020 the EPA sent Entergy and other PRPs a demand
281

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

letter seeking reimbursement for response costs totaling $4 million expended at the site. The demand letter is being evaluated and liability and PRP allocation of response costs are yet to be determined.

Entergy Texas

In December 2016 a transformer inside the Hartburg, Texas Substation had an internal fault resulting in a release of approximately 15,000 gallons of non-PCB mineral oil. Cleanup ensued immediately; however, rain caused much of the oil to spread across the substation yard and into a nearby wetland. The TCEQ and the National Response Center were immediately notified, and the TCEQ responded to the site approximately two hours after the cleanup was initiated. The remediation liability is estimated at $2.2 million; however, this number could fluctuate depending on the remediation extent and wetland mitigation requirements. In July 2017, Entergy entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program with the TCEQ. In November 2017, additional soil sampling was completed in the wetland area and, in February 2018, a site summary report of findings was submitted to the TCEQ. The TCEQ responded in June 2018 and requested an ecological exclusion criteria checklist/Tier II screening-level ecological risk assessment, and additional site assessment, additional soil samples, groundwater samples, and some additional diagrams and maps. In October 2018, Entergy submitted the requested information to the TCEQ. In January 2019 the TCEQ responded with another request for information. In March 2019, Entergy submitted the requested information to the TCEQ. In August 2019 the TCEQ responded with a request for additional information including an Affected Property Assessment Report (APAR) and water well survey. The TCEQ has agreed that the necessity of the water well survey is dependent on the results of the groundwater resampling that will occur. Groundwater sampling was completed in December 2019 and results were submitted to the TCEQ for review. Based on the groundwater sampling results, the TCEQ confirmed in February 2020 that a water well survey is not necessary and requested the APAR and an Ecological Risk Assessment by August 2020. Due to COVID-19 delays, the TCEQ extended the APAR and Ecological Risk Assessment submittal dates to December 2020, which Entergy timely met.

Litigation

Entergy uses legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against it, but certain states in which Entergy operates have proven to be unusually litigious environments.  Judges and juries in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases.  The litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk to Entergy.

Asbestos Litigation(Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of this litigation.

Employment and Labor-related Proceedings (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of these proceedings.

282

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Human Capital

Employees

Employees are an integral part of Entergy’s commitment to serving customers.  As of December 31, 2020, Entergy subsidiaries employed 13,400 people.

Utility:
Entergy Arkansas1,244 
Entergy Louisiana1,654 
Entergy Mississippi750 
Entergy New Orleans303 
Entergy Texas658 
System Energy— 
Entergy Operations3,529 
Entergy Services3,859 
Entergy Nuclear Operations1,356 
Other subsidiaries47 
Total Entergy13,400 

Approximately 3,900 employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Utility Workers Union of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Government Security Officers of America, and the International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America.

Below is the breakdown of Entergy’s employees by gender and race/ethnicity:

Gender (%)20202019
Female2120
Male7980
100100


Race/Ethnicity (%)20202019
White7879
Black/African American1515
Hispanic/Latino32
Asian22
Other22
100100

Entergy’s Approach to Human Resources

Entergy’s people and culture enable its success; that is why acquiring, retaining, and developing talent are important components of Entergy’s human resources strategy. Entergy focuses on an approach that includes, among other things, governance and oversight; safety; organizational health, including diversity, inclusion and belonging; and talent management.

283

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Governance and Oversight

Ensuring that workplace processes support the desired culture and strategy begins with the Board of Directors and the Office of the Chief Executive. The Personnel Committee establishes priorities and reviews performance on a range of topics. It oversees Entergy’s incentive plan design and administers its executive compensation plans to incentivize the behaviors and outcomes that support achievement of Entergy’s corporate objectives. Annually, it reviews executive performance, development and succession plans to align a high performing executive team with Entergy’s priorities. The Personnel Committee also oversees Entergy’s performance through regular briefings on a wide variety of human resources topics including Entergy’s safety culture and performance; organizational health; and diversity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives and performance.

Other committees of the Board oversee other key aspects of Entergy’s culture. For example, the Audit Committee reviews reports on ethics and compliance training and performance, as well as regular reports on calls made to Entergy’s ethics line and related investigations. To maximize the sharing of information and facilitate the participation of all Board members in these discussions, the Board schedules its regular committee meetings in a manner such that all directors can attend.

The Office of the Chief Executive, which includes the Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, ensures annual business plans are designed to support Entergy’s talent objectives, reviews workforce-related metrics, and regularly discusses the development, succession planning, and performance of their direct reports and other company officers.

Safety

Entergy’s safety objective is: Everyone Safe. All Day. Every Day. While the COVID-19 pandemic and historical hurricane season presented significant challenges, Entergy’s safety strategy and commitment to excellence showed results in 2020. Entergy employees achieved a total recordable incident rate of 0.40 in 2020 compared to 0.56 in 2019 and 0.48 in 2018. The recordable incident rate equals the number of recordable incidents per 100 full-time equivalents. Recordable incidents include fatalities, lost-time accidents, restricted-duty accidents, and medical attentions and is not inclusive of potential work-related COVID-19 cases. This marked improvement in total recordable incident rate placed Entergy in top-decile in safety performance when benchmarked amongst peers within the Edison Electric Institute.

Organizational Health, including Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging

Entergy believes that organizational health fosters an engaged and productive culture that positions Entergy to deliver sustainable value to its stakeholders. Entergy measures its progress through an organizational health survey coordinated by an external third party. Since initially administering the survey in 2014, Entergy improved from an initial score of 49 (fourth quartile) to a score in 2020 of 72 (near top quartile). In addition to significantly improved scores, initial employee participation of 66 percent in 2014 rose to and remains at 90 percent in 2018-2020.

Entergy believes that a culture focused on diversity, inclusion, and belonging drives foundational engagement. Entergy is committed to developing and retaining a workforce that reflects the rich diversity of the communities it serves. In 2019, Entergy embarked on a three-year phased approach to enhance inclusion for individuals and teams. Among other actions, the primary focus of its 2020 actions was taking a stand against social injustice, reinforcing expectations, training and leading by example, starting at the top of the organization and cascading through management ranks.

284

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Talent Management

Entergy’s focus on talent management is organized in three areas: developing and attracting a diverse pool of talent, equipping its leaders to develop the organization, and building premier utility capability through employee performance management and succession programs. Entergy believes that developing a diverse pool of local talent equipped with the skills needed, today and in the future, and reflecting the communities Entergy serves will give it a long-term competitive advantage. The focus of Entergy’s leadership development programs is to equip managers with the skills needed to effectively develop their teams and improve the leader-employee relationship. Entergy’s talent development infrastructure, which includes a combination of business function-specific and enterprise-wide learning and development programs, is designed to ensure Entergy has qualified staff with the skills, experiences, and behaviors needed to perform today and prepare for the future. Entergy strives to achieve its strategic priorities by aligning and enhancing team and individual performance with business objectives, effectively deploying talent through succession planning, and managing workforce transitions.

Availability of SEC filings and other information on Entergy’s website

Entergy electronically files reports with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxies, and amendments to such reports. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of the reports that Entergy files with the SEC can be obtained at the SEC’s website.

Entergy uses its website, http://www.entergy.com, as a routine channel for distribution of important information, including news releases, analyst presentations and financial information.  Filings made with the SEC are posted and available without charge on Entergy’s website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.  These filings include annual and quarterly reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q (including related filings in Inline XBRL format) and current reports on Form 8-K; proxy statements; and any amendments to those reports or statements.  All such postings and filings are available on Entergy’s Investor Relations website free of charge.  Entergy is providing the address to its internet site solely for the information of investors and does not intend the address to be an active link.  The contents of the website are not incorporated into this report.


285

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

RISK FACTORS

See “RISK FACTOR SUMMARY” in Part I Item 1 for a summary of Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ risk factors.

Investors should review carefully the following risk factors and the other information in this Form 10-K.  The risks that Entergy faces are not limited to those in this section.  There may be additional risks and uncertainties (either currently unknown or not currently believed to be material) that could adversely affect Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.  See “FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION.”

Utility Regulatory Risks

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and responsive measures taken on Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ business, results of operations, and financial condition are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

In December 2019 a novel strain of coronavirus was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan, China. Since then, COVID-19 has spread throughout most countries in the world, including the United States. Public health officials in the United States have both recommended and mandated wearing of masks, precautions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including prohibitions on congregating in heavily-populated areas, mandated closure or limitations on the functions of non-essential business, and shelter-in-place orders or similar measures, including throughout Entergy’s service areas. While some of these mitigation measures have been lifted, it is unclear how long certain forms of mitigation measures will remain in place, whether they will be reinstated in the future, and how they will ultimately impact the general economy, Entergy’s customers, and its operations.

Entergy and its Utility operating companies have experienced a decline in commercial and industrial sales and an increase in arrearages and bad debt expense due to non-payment by customers, and expect such reduced levels of sales and increased arrearages and bad debt expense to continue, the extent and duration of which management cannot predict. The Utility operating companies temporarily suspended disconnecting customers for non-payment of bills, and the suspension remains in place at Entergy Arkansas, has been re-instituted at Entergy New Orleans, and could be re-instituted at the other Utility operating companies should their regulators mandate. While they are working with regulators to ensure ultimate recovery for those and other COVID-19 related costs, the amount, method, and timing of such recovery is unknown. Entergy and its Registrant Subsidiaries also could experience, and in some cases have experienced, among other challenges, supply chain, vendor, and contractor disruptions; delays in completion of capital or other construction projects, maintenance, and other operations activities, including prolonged or delayed outages; delays in regulatory proceedings; workforce availability, health or safety issues; increased storm recovery costs; increased cybersecurity risks as a result of many employees telecommuting; increased late or uncollectible customer payments; volatility in the credit or capital markets (and any related increased cost of capital or any inability to access the capital markets or draw on available credit facilities); or other adverse impacts on their ability to execute on business strategies and initiatives.

A sustained or further economic decline could adversely impact Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity and cash flows, including through declining sales, reduced revenues, delays in receipts of customer payments, or increased bad debt expense. The Utility operating companies also may experience regulatory outcomes that require them to postpone planned investment and otherwise reduce costs due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their customers. In addition, if the COVID-19 pandemic continues to create disruptions or turmoil in the credit or financial markets, or adversely impacts Entergy’s credit metrics or ratings, such developments could adversely affect its ability to access capital on favorable terms and continue to meet its
286

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

liquidity needs, or cause a decrease in the value of its defined benefit pension trust funds, as well as its nuclear decommissioning trust funds, all of which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

Entergy cannot predict the extent or duration of the outbreak, the impact of new variants of COVID-19, the timing, availability, distribution or effectiveness of a vaccine, anti-viral or other treatments for COVID-19, governmental responsive measures, or the extent of the effects or ultimate impacts on the global, national or local economy, the capital markets, or its customers, suppliers, operations, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

The terms and conditions of service, including electric and gas rates, of the Utility operating companies and System Energy are determined through regulatory approval proceedings that can be lengthy and subject to appeal, potentially resulting in delays in effecting rate changes, lengthy litigation and uncertainty as to ultimate results.

The Utility operating companies are regulated on a cost-of-service and rate of return basis and are subject to statutes and regulatory commission rules and procedures. The rates that the Utility operating companies and System Energy charge reflect their capital expenditures, operations and maintenance costs, allowed rates of return, financing costs, and related costs of service.  These rates significantly influence the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy and each of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.  These rates are determined in regulatory proceedings and are subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment, including adjustment upon the initiative of a regulator or affected stakeholders.

In addition, regulators may initiate proceedings to investigate the prudence of costs in the Utility operating companies’ and System Energy’s base rates and examine, among other things, the reasonableness or prudence of the companies’ operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures (including storm costs and costs associated with capital projects), allowed rates of return and rate base, proposed resource acquisitions, and previously incurred capital expenditures that the operating companies seek to place in rates.  The regulators may disallow costs subject to their jurisdiction found not to have been prudently incurred or found not to have been incurred in compliance with applicable tariffs, creating some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs.  Regulatory proceedings relating to rates and other matters typically involve multiple parties seeking to limit or reduce rates.  Traditional base rate proceedings, as opposed to formula rate plans, generally have long timelines, are primarily based on historical costs, and may or may not be limited in scope or duration by statute. The length of these base rate proceedings can cause the Utility operating companies and System Energy to experience regulatory lag in recovering costs through rates, such that the Utility operating companies may not fully recover all costs during the rate effective period and the Utility operating companies may, therefore, earn less than their allowed returns.  Decisions are typically subject to appeal, potentially leading to additional uncertainty associated with rate case proceedings.

The Utility operating companies have large customer and stakeholder bases and, as a result, could be the subject of public criticism or adverse publicity focused on issues including the operation of their assets and infrastructure or the quality of their service. Criticism or adverse publicity of this nature could render legislatures and other governing bodies, public service commissions and other regulatory authorities, and government officials less likely to view the applicable operating company in a favorable light and could potentially negatively affect legislative or regulatory processes or outcomes, as well as lead to increased regulatory oversight or more stringent legislative or regulatory requirements.

The base rates of Entergy Texas are established largely in traditional base rate case proceedings.Between base rate proceedings, Entergy Texas has available rate riders to recover the revenue requirements associated with certain incremental costs.These riders include a distribution cost recovery factor rider mechanism for the recovery of distribution-related capital investment and certain non-fuel MISO charges, a transmission cost recovery factor rider mechanism for the recovery of transmission-related capital investments, a generation cost recovery rider mechanism for the recovery of generation-related capital investments, and a fixed fuel factor mechanism for the recovery of MISO fuel and energy-related costs.Entergy Texas also is required to make a filing every three years,
287

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

at a minimum, reconciling its fuel and purchased power costs and fuel factor revenues.In the course of this reconciliation, the PUCT determines whether eligible fuel and fuel-related expenses and revenues are necessary and reasonable, and makes a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts for the reconciliation period.Entergy Texas also is required to file full base rate case proceedings every four years and within eighteen months of utilizing its generation cost recovery rider for investments above $200 million.

Between base rate cases, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi are able to adjust base rates annually through formula rate plans that utilize a forward test year (Entergy Arkansas) or forward-looking features (Entergy Mississippi).In response to Entergy Arkansas’s application for a general change in rates in 2015, the APSC approved the formula rate plan tariff proposed by Entergy Arkansas including its use of a projected year test period and an initial five-year term.The initial five-year term expires in 2021. Entergy Arkansas has requested APSC approval of the extension of the formula rate plan tariff for an additional five years through 2026.If Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan were terminated or not extended beyond the initial term, Entergy Arkansas could file an application for a general change in rates that may include a request for continued regulation under a formula rate review mechanism.If Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan is terminated, it would revert to the more traditional rate case environment or seek approval of a new formula rate plan.Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi recover fuel and purchased energy and certain non-fuel costs through other APSC-approved and MPSC-approved tariffs, respectively.

Entergy Louisiana historically sets electric base rates annually through a formula rate plan using an historic test year.The form of the formula rate plan, on a combined basis, was approved in connection with the business combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and largely followed the formula rate plans that were approved by the LPSC in connection with the full electric base rate cases filed by those companies in February 2013.The formula rate plan was most recently extended through the test year 2019; certain modifications were made in that extension, including a decrease to the allowed return on equity and the addition of a transmission cost recovery mechanism.The formula rate plan continues to include exceptions from the rate cap and sharing requirements for certain large capital investment projects, including acquisition or construction of generating facilities and purchase power agreements approved by the LPSC and as noted, for certain transmission investment, among other items.MISO fuel and energy-related costs are recoverable in Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause.Entergy Louisiana has a pending request to extend its formula rate plan with certain modifications, including implementation of a distribution investment recovery mechanism and use of end of period rate base.In the event that the electric formula rate plan is not renewed or extended, Entergy Louisiana would revert to the more traditional rate case environment.

Entergy New Orleans previously operated under a formula rate plan that ended with the 2011 test year.Based on a settlement agreement approved by the City Council, with limited exceptions, the base rates of Entergy New Orleans were frozen until rates were implemented in connection with the base rate case filed by Entergy New Orleans in 2018.In November 2019 the City Council issued a resolution resolving the rate case, with rates to become effective retroactive to August 2019.The resolution allows Entergy New Orleans to implement a three-year formula rate plan, beginning with the 2019 test year as adjusted for forward-looking known and measurable changes.In November 2020 the City Council issued a resolution approving a settlement of the 2018 rate case.As part of this settlement, Entergy New Orleans agreed to postpone the filing of its first test year formula rate plan to 2021 and, in return, to be provided an additional test year for the three-year cycle.See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion.

The rates of System Energy are established by the FERC, and the costs allowed to be charged pursuant to these rates are, in turn, passed through to the participating Utility operating companies through the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which has monthly billings that reflect the current operating costs of, and investment in, Grand Gulf. Retail regulators and other parties may seek to initiate proceedings at FERC to investigate the prudence of costs included in the rates charged under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and examine, among other things, the
288

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

reasonableness or prudence of the operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures, allowed rates of return and rate base, and previously incurred capital expenditures. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is currently the subject of several litigation proceedings at the FERC, including a challenge with respect to System Energy’s uncertain tax positions, sale leaseback arrangement, authorized return on equity and capital structure, and a separate request for FERC to initiate a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Entergy cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings nor can it predict whether any outcome could have a material effect on Entergy’s or System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the proceedings. System Energy has received FERC acceptance for billing protocols to provide retail regulators with information regarding rates billed under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

The Utility operating companies and System Energy, and the energy industry as a whole, have experienced a period of rising costs and investments, and an upward trend in spending, especially with respect to infrastructure investments, which is likely to continue in the foreseeable future and could result in more frequent rate cases and requests for, and the continuation of, cost recovery mechanisms.  For information regarding rate case proceedings and formula rate plans applicable to the Utility operating companies, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

Changes to state or federal legislation or regulation affecting electric generation, electric and natural gas transmission, distribution, and related activities could adversely affect Entergy and the Utility operating companies’ financial position, results of operations, or cash flows and their utility businesses.

If legislative and regulatory structures evolve in a manner that erodes the Utility operating companies’ exclusive rights to serve their regulated customers, they could lose customers and sales and their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially affected. Additionally, technological advances in energy efficiency and distributed energy resources are reducing the costs of these technologies and together with ongoing state and federal subsidies, the increasing penetration of these technologies could result in reduced sales by the Utility operating companies. Such loss of sales could put upward pressure on rates, resulting in adverse regulatory actions to mitigate such effects on rates. Entergy and the Utility operating companies cannot predict if or when they may be subject to changes in legislation or regulation, or the extent and timing of reductions of the cost of distributed energy resources, nor can they predict the impact of these changes on their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The Utility operating companies recover fuel, purchased power, and associated costs through rate mechanisms that are subject to risks of delay or disallowance in regulatory proceedings.

The Utility operating companies recover their fuel, purchased power, and associated costs from their customers through rate mechanisms subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment.  Because regulatory review can result in the disallowance of incurred costs found not to have been prudently incurred, including the cost of replacement power purchased when generators experience outages or when planned outages are extended, with the possibility of refunds to ratepayers, there exists some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs, particularly when there are substantial or sudden increases in such costs.  Regulators also may initiate proceedings to investigate the continued usage or the adequacy and operation of the fuel and purchased power recovery clauses of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, there can be no assurance that existing recovery mechanisms will remain unchanged or in effect at all.

The Utility operating companies’ cash flows can be negatively affected by the time delays between when gas, power, or other commodities are purchased and the ultimate recovery from customers of the costs in rates.  On occasion, when the level of incurred costs for fuel and purchased power rises very dramatically, some of the Utility operating companies may agree to defer recovery of a portion of that period’s fuel and purchased power costs for recovery at a later date, which could increase the near-term working capital and borrowing requirements of those companies.  For a description of fuel and purchased power recovery mechanisms and information regarding the regulatory proceedings for fuel and purchased power costs recovery, see Note 2 to the financial statements.
289

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


There remains uncertainty regarding the effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies.

The Utility operating companies historically engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating resources and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that had been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement terminated in its entirety on August 31, 2016.

There remains uncertainty regarding the long-term effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies because of the significant effect of the agreement on the generation and transmission functions of the Utility operating companies and the significant period of time (over 30 years) that it had been in existence. In the absence of the System Agreement, there remains uncertainty around the effectiveness of governance processes and the potential absence of federal authority to resolve certain issues among the Utility operating companies and their retail regulators.

In addition, although the System Agreement terminated in its entirety in August 2016, there are a few outstanding System Agreement proceedings at the FERC and at the D.C. Circuit that may require future adjustments, including challenges to the level and timing of payments made by Entergy Arkansas under the System Agreement. The outcome and timing of these FERC proceedings and resulting recovery and impact on rates cannot be predicted at this time.

For further information regarding the regulatory proceedings relating to the System Agreement, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO RTO tariff and their participation in the MISO RTO’s wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

On December 19, 2013, the Utility operating companies integrated into the MISO RTO. MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a bilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets. MISO tariff rules and system conditions, including transmission congestion, could affect the Utility operating companies’ ability to sell capacity, energy, and/or ancillary services in certain regions and/or the economic value of such sales, or the cost of serving the Utility operating companies’ respective loads, and MISO market rules may change in ways that cause additional risk.

The Utility operating companies participate in the MISO regional transmission planning process and are subject to risks associated with planning decisions that MISO makes in the exercise of control over the planning of the Utility operating companies’ transmission assets that are under MISO’s functional control. The Utility operating companies pay transmission rates that reflect the cost of transmission projects that the Utility operating companies do not own, which could increase cash or financing needs. In addition to the cash and financing-related risks arising from the potential additional cost allocation to the Utility operating companies from transmission projects of others, there is a risk that the Utility operating companies’ business and financial position could be harmed as a result of lost investment opportunities and other effects that flow from an increased number of competitive projects being approved and constructed that are interconnected with their transmission systems. Further, the terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets, the
290

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

allocation of transmission upgrade costs, the MISO-wide allowed base rate of return on equity, and any required MISO-related charges and credits are subject to regulation by the FERC. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO tariff and their participation in the MISO wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements. In addition, orders from each of the Utility operating companies’ respective retail regulators generally require that the Utility operating companies make periodic filings, or generally allow the retail regulator to direct the making of such filings, setting forth the results of analysis of the costs and benefits realized from MISO membership as well as the projected costs and benefits of continued membership in MISO and/or requesting approval of their continued membership in MISO. These filings have been submitted periodically by each of the Utility operating companies as required by their respective retail regulators, and the outcome of the resulting proceedings may affect the Utility operating companies’ continued membership in MISO.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred as a result of severe weather (including from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta), or the impact on customer bills of permitted storm cost recovery, could have material effects on Entergy and its Utility operating companies.

Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition can be materially affected by the destructive effects of severe weather.  Severe weather can also result in significant outages for the customers of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, reduced revenues for the Utility operating companies during the period of the outages.  A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred or revenues lost as a result of severe weather could have a material effect on Entergy and those Utility operating companies affected by severe weather. In addition, the recovery of major storm restoration costs from customers could effectively limit our ability to make planned capital or other investments due to the impact of such storm cost recovery on customer bills.

In August and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, including New Orleans, Texas, and to a lesser extent, in Arkansas and Mississippi. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of the electrical system damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $2.4 billion. Because Entergy has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

Nuclear Operating, Shutdown, and Regulatory Risks

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy)

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities must consistently operate their nuclear power plants at high capacity factors in order to be successful, and lower capacity factors could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Nuclear capacity factors significantly affect the results of operations of certain Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  Nuclear plant operations involve substantial fixed operating
291

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

costs.  Consequently, to be successful, a plant owner must consistently operate its nuclear power plants at high capacity factors, consistent with safety requirements. For the Utility operating companies that own nuclear plants, lower capacity factors can increase production costs by requiring the affected companies to generate additional energy, sometimes at higher costs, from their owned or contractually controlled facilities or purchase additional energy in the spot or forward markets in order to satisfy their supply needs.  For the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants, lower capacity factors directly affect revenues and cash flow from operations.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward sales are comprised of various hedge products, many of which have some degree of operational-contingent price risk. Certain unit-contingent contracts guarantee specified minimum capacity factors. In the event plants with these contracts were operating below the guaranteed capacity factors, Entergy would be subject to price risk for the undelivered power.  Further, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear forward sales contracts can also be on a firm LD basis, which subjects Entergy to increasing price risk as capacity factors decrease. Many of these firm hedge products have damages risk.

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy periodically shut down their nuclear power plants to replenish fuel.  Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such refueling outages.  If refueling outages last longer than anticipated or if unplanned outages arise, Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected.

Outages at nuclear power plants to replenish fuel require the plant to be “turned off.”  Refueling outages generally are planned to occur once every 18 to 24 months.  Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such planned outages, which typically extends the planned outage duration.  When refueling outages last longer than anticipated or a plant experiences unplanned outages, capacity factors decrease, and maintenance costs may increase.

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy face risks related to the purchase of uranium fuel (and its conversion, enrichment, and fabrication). These risks could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, Entergy’s nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable prices through 2020 and beyond. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners. While there are a number of possible alternate suppliers that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, the pricing of any such alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time. Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S. Market prices for nuclear fuel have been extremely volatile from time to time in the past and may be subject to increased volatility due to the imposition of tariffs, domestic purchase requirements or limitations on importation of uranium or uranium products from foreign countries, or shifting trade arrangements between countries.  Although Entergy’s nuclear fuel contract portfolio provides a degree of hedging against market risks for several years, costs for nuclear fuel in the future cannot be predicted with certainty due to normal inherent market uncertainties, and price changes could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.

Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance and reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. These service providers are fewer in number than uranium suppliers. For conversion and enrichment services, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures to ensure a reliable supply of enriched uranium for fabrication into nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel; therefore, Entergy relies upon additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight of the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality of its nuclear fuel. Certain of the suppliers and service providers are located in or dependent upon countries, such as Russia, in which international sanctions or tariffs could further restrict the ability of such
292

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

suppliers to continue to supply fuel or provide such services at acceptable prices or at all.  The inability of such suppliers or service providers to perform such obligations could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business face the risk that the NRC will change or modify its regulations, suspend or revoke their licenses, or increase oversight of their nuclear plants, which could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Under the Atomic Energy Act and Energy Reorganization Act, the NRC regulates the operation of nuclear power plants.  The NRC may modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility and impose civil penalties for failure to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, related regulations, or the terms of the licenses for nuclear facilities. Interested parties may also intervene which could result in prolonged proceedings. A change in the Atomic Energy Act, other applicable statutes, or the applicable regulations or licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, may require a substantial increase in capital expenditures or may result in increased operating or decommissioning costs and could materially affect the results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition of Entergy (through Entergy Wholesale Commodities), its Utility operating companies, or System Energy.  A change in the classification of a plant owned by one of these companies under the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process, which is the NRC’s program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response, also could cause the owner of the plant to incur material additional costs as a result of the increased oversight activity and potential response costs associated with the change in classification.For additional information concerning the current classification of the plants owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see “Regulation of Entergy’s Business- Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry - NRC Reactor Oversight Process” in Part I, Item 1.

Events at nuclear plants owned by one of these companies, as well as those owned by others, may lead to a change in laws or regulations or the terms of the applicable licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, or may cause the NRC to increase oversight activity or initiate actions to modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility, or impose civil penalties.  As a result, if an incident were to occur at any nuclear generating unit, whether an Entergy nuclear generating unit or not, it could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities are exposed to risks and costs related to operating and maintaining their nuclear power plants, and their failure to maintain operational efficiency at their nuclear power plants could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

The nuclear generating units owned by certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy,and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business began commercial operations in the 1970s-1980s.  Older equipment may require more capital expenditures to keep each of these nuclear power plants operating safely and efficiently.  This equipment is also likely to require periodic upgrading and improvement.  Any unexpected failure, including failure associated with breakdowns, forced outages, or any unanticipated capital expenditures, could result in increased costs, some of which costs may not be fully recoverable by the Utility operating companies and System Energy in regulatory proceedings should there be a determination of imprudence.  Operations at any of the nuclear generating units owned and operated by Entergy’s subsidiaries could degrade to the point where the affected unit needs to be shut down or operated at less than full capacity.  If this were to happen, identifying and correcting the causes may require significant time and expense.  A decision may be made to close a unit rather than incur the expense of restarting it or returning the unit to full capacity.  For the Utility operating companies and System Energy, this could result in certain costs being stranded and potentially not fully recoverable in regulatory proceedings. For Entergy Wholesale Commodities, this could result in lost revenue and increased fuel and purchased power expense to meet
293

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

supply commitments and penalties for failure to perform under their contracts with customers. In addition, the operation and maintenance of Entergy’s nuclear facilities require the commitment of substantial human resources that can result in increased costs.

The nuclear industry continues to address susceptibility to the effects of stress corrosion cracking and other corrosion mechanisms on certain materials within plant systems.  The issue is applicable at all nuclear units to varying degrees and is managed in accordance with industry standard practices and guidelines that include in-service examinations, replacements, and mitigation strategies.  Developments in the industry or identification of issues at the nuclear units could require unanticipated remediation efforts that cannot be quantified in advance.

Moreover, Entergy is becoming more dependent on fewer suppliers for key parts of Entergy’s nuclear power plants that may need to be replaced or refurbished, and in some cases, parts are no longer available and have to be reverse-engineered for replacement.  In addition, certain major parts have long lead-times to manufacture if an unplanned replacement is needed. This dependence on a reduced number of suppliers and long lead-times on certain major parts for unplanned replacements could result in delays in obtaining qualified replacement parts and, therefore, greater expense for Entergy.

The costs associated with the storage of the spent nuclear fuel of certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, as well as the costs of and their ability to fully decommission their nuclear power plants, could be significantly affected by the timing of the opening of a spent nuclear fuel disposal facility, as well as interim storage and transportation requirements.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants incur costs for the on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel.  The approval of a license for a national repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, such as the one proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, or any interim storage facility, and the timing of such facility opening, will significantly affect the costs associated with on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel.  For example, while the DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing of Yucca Mountain and, after the license is granted by the NRC, to construct the repository and commence the receipt of spent fuel, the NRC licensing of the Yucca Mountain repository is effectively at a standstill. These actions are prolonging the time before spent fuel is removed from Entergy’s plant sites.  Because the DOE has not accomplished its objectives, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts, and Entergy has sued the DOE for such breach.  Furthermore, Entergy is uncertain as to when the DOE will commence acceptance of spent fuel from its facilities for storage or disposal.  As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at the companies’ nuclear sites and maintenance costs on existing storage facilities, including aging management of fuel storage casks, may increase.  The costs of on-site storage are also affected by regulatory requirements for such storage.  In addition, the availability of a repository or other off-site storage facility for spent nuclear fuel may affect the ability to fully decommission the nuclear units and the costs relating to decommissioning.  For further information regarding spent fuel storage, see the “Critical Accounting EstimatesNuclear Decommissioning CostsSpent Fuel Disposal” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy and Note 8 to the financial statements.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to pay substantial retrospective premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act in the event of a nuclear incident, and losses not covered by insurance could have a material effect on Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

Accidents and other unforeseen problems at nuclear power plants have occurred both in the United States and elsewhere.  The Price-Anderson Act limits each reactor owner’s public liability (off-site) for a single nuclear incident to the payment of retrospective premiums into a secondary insurance pool, which is referred to as Secondary Financial Protection, up to approximately $137.6 million per reactor.  With 97 reactors currently
294

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

participating, this translates to a total public liability cap of approximately $14 billion per incident.  The limit is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation, a change in the primary limit of insurance coverage, and changes in the number of licensed reactors.  As required by the Price-Anderson Act, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities carry the maximum available amount of primary nuclear off-site liability insurance with American Nuclear Insurers, which is $450 million for each operating site.  Claims for any nuclear incident exceeding that amount are covered under Secondary Financial Protection.  As a result, in the event of a nuclear incident that causes damages (off-site) in excess of the primary insurance coverage, each owner of a nuclear plant reactor, including Entergy’s Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners, regardless of fault or proximity to the incident, will be required to pay a retrospective premium, equal to its proportionate share of the loss in excess of the primary insurance level, up to a maximum of approximately $137.6 million per reactor per incident (Entergy’s maximum total contingent obligation per incident is $1.101 billion).  The retrospective premium payment is currently limited to approximately $21 million per year per incident per reactor until the aggregate public liability for each licensee is paid up to the $137.6 million cap.

NEIL is a utility industry mutual insurance company, owned by its members, including the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants. All member plants could be subject to an annual assessment (retrospective premium of up to 10 times current annual premium for all policies) should the NEIL surplus (reserve) be significantly depleted due toinsured losses.  As of December 31, 2020, the maximum annual assessment amounts total $104 million for the Utility plants.  Retrospective premium insurance available through NEIL’s reinsurance treaty can cover the potential assessments and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants currently maintain the retrospective premium insurance to cover those potential assessments.

As an owner of nuclear power plants, Entergy participates in industry self-insurance programs and could be liable to fund claims should a plant owned by a different company experience a major event.  Any resulting liability from a nuclear accident may exceed the applicable primary insurance coverage and require contribution of additional funds through the industry-wide program that could significantly affect the results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries.

The decommissioning trust fund assets for the nuclear power plants owned by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may not be adequate to meet decommissioning obligations if market performance and other changes decrease the value of assets in the decommissioning trusts, if one or more of Entergy’s nuclear power plants is retired earlier than the anticipated shutdown date, if the plants cost more to decommission than estimated, or if current regulatory requirements change, which then could require significant additional funding.

Owners of nuclear generating plants have an obligation to decommission those plants.  Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants maintain decommissioning trust funds for this purpose.  Certain of the Utility operating companies collect funds from their customers, which are deposited into the trusts covering the units operated for or on behalf of those companies.  Those rate collections, as adjusted from time to time by rate regulators, are generally based upon operating license lives and trust fund balances as well as estimated trust fund earnings and decommissioning costs.  Assets in these trust funds are subject to market fluctuations, will yield uncertain returns that may fall below projected return rates, and may result in losses resulting from the recognition of impairments of the value of certain securities held in these trust funds.

Under NRC regulations, nuclear plant owners are permitted to project the NRC-required decommissioning amount, based on an NRC formula or a site-specific estimate, and the amount that will be available in each nuclear power plant’s decommissioning trusts combined with any other decommissioning financial assurances in place.  The projections are made based on the operating license expiration date and the mid-point of the subsequent
295

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

decommissioning process, or the anticipated actual completion of decommissioning if a site-specific estimate is used. If the projected amount of each individual plant’s decommissioning trusts exceeds the NRC-required decommissioning amount, then its NRC license termination decommissioning obligations are considered to be funded in accordance with NRC regulations.  If the projected costs do not sufficiently reflect the actual costs required to decommission these nuclear power plants, or funding is otherwise inadequate, or if the formula, formula inputs, or site-specific estimate is changed to require increased funding, additional resources or commitments would be required.  Furthermore, depending upon the level of funding available in the trust funds, the NRC may not permit the trust funds to be used to pay for related costs such as the management of spent nuclear fuel that are not included in the NRC’s formula.  The NRC may also require a plan for the provision of separate funding for spent fuel management costs.  In addition to NRC requirements, there are other decommissioning-related obligations for certain of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, which management believes it will be able to satisfy.

Further, federal or state regulatory changes, including mandated increases in decommissioning funding or changes in the methods or standards for decommissioning operations, may also increase the funding requirements of, or accelerate the timing for funding of, the obligations related to the decommissioning of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants or may restrict the decommissioning-related costs that can be paid from the decommissioning trusts.  Such changes also could result in the need for additional contributions to decommissioning trusts, or the posting of parent guarantees, letters of credit, or other surety mechanisms. As a result, under any of these circumstances, Entergy’s results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition could be materially affected.

An early plant shutdown (either generally or relative to current expectations), poor investment results, or higher than anticipated decommissioning costs (including as a result of changing regulatory requirements) could cause trust fund assets to be insufficient to meet the decommissioning obligations, with the result that the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to provide significant additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning, which, with respect to the Utility operating companies, may not be recoverable from customers in a timely fashion or at all.

For further information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs, management’s decision to exit the merchant power business, the impairment charges that resulted from such decision, and the planned sales of Palisades and Indian Point Energy Center (which, in each case, will include the transfer of the associated decommissioning trusts), see the “Critical Accounting Estimates- Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, and Notes 9 and 14 to the financial statements.

New or existing safety concerns regarding operating nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel could lead to restrictions upon the operation and decommissioning of Entergy’s nuclear power plants.

New and existing concerns are being expressed in public forums about the safety of nuclear generating units and nuclear fuel. These concerns have led to, and may continue to lead to, various proposals to Federal regulators and governing bodies in some localities where Entergy’s subsidiaries own nuclear generating units for legislative and regulatory changes that might lead to the shutdown of nuclear units, additional requirements or restrictions related to spent nuclear fuel on-site storage and eventual disposal, or other adverse effects on owning, operating, and decommissioning nuclear generating units.  Entergy vigorously responds to these concerns and proposals.  If any of the existing proposals, or any proposals that may arise in the future with respect to legislative and regulatory changes, become effective, they could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations and financial condition.

296

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

(Entergy Corporation)

Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are exposed to price risk.

Entergy and its subsidiaries do not have a regulator-authorized rate of return on their capital investments in non-utility businesses.  As a result, the sale of capacity and energy from the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, unless otherwise contracted, is subject to the fluctuation of market power prices. In order to reduce future price risk to desired levels, Entergy Wholesale Commodities utilizes contracts that are unit-contingent and Firm LD and various products such as forward sales, options, and collars.  As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power generation plants had sold forward 98% in 2021 and 99% in 2022 of its generation portfolio’s planned energy output, reflecting the planned shutdown and sale of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants by mid-2022.

Market conditions such as product cost, market liquidity, and other portfolio considerations influence the product and contractual mix.  The obligations under unit-contingent agreements depend on a generating asset that is operating; if the generation asset is not operating, the seller generally is not liable for damages.  For some unit-contingent obligations, however, there is also a guarantee of availability that provides for the payment to the power purchaser of contract damages, if incurred, in the event the unit owner fails to deliver power as a result of the failure of the specified generation unit to generate power at or above a specified availability threshold.  Firm LD sales transactions may be exposed to substantial operational price risk, a portion of which may be capped through the use of risk management products, to the extent that the plants do not run as expected and market prices exceed contract prices.

Market prices may fluctuate substantially, sometimes over relatively short periods of time, and at other times experience sustained increases or decreases.  Demand for electricity and its fuel stock can fluctuate dramatically, creating periods of substantial under- or over-supply.  During periods of over-supply, prices might be depressed.  Also, from time to time there may be political pressure, or pressure from regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over wholesale and retail energy commodity and transportation rates, to impose price limitations, credit requirements, bidding rules, and other mechanisms to address volatility and other issues in these markets.

The effects of sustained low natural gas prices and power market structure challenges have resulted in lower market prices for electricity in the power regions where the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are located. In addition, currently the market design under which the plants operate does not adequately compensate merchant nuclear plants for their environmental and fuel diversity benefits in the region. These conditions were primary factors leading to Entergy’s decision to shut down (or sell) Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power plants before the end of their operating licenses.

The price that different counterparties offer for various products including forward sales is influenced both by market conditions as well as the contract terms such as damage provisions, credit support requirements, and the number of available counterparties interested in contracting for the desired forward period.  Depending on differences between market factors at the time of contracting versus current conditions, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contract portfolio may have average contract prices above or below current market prices, including at the expiration of the contracts, which may significantly affect Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.  New hedges are generally layered into on a rolling forward basis, which tends to drive hedge over-performance to market in a falling price environment, and hedge underperformance to market in a rising price environment; however, hedge timing, product choice, and hedging costs will also affect these results. See the “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries.  Since Entergy Wholesale Commodities has announced the closure (or sale) of its nuclear plants, Entergy Wholesale Commodities may enter into fewer forward sales contracts for output from such plants.

297

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to substantial governmental regulation and may be adversely affected by legislative, regulatory, or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to extensive regulation under federal, state, and local laws. Compliance with the requirements under these various regulatory regimes may cause the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to incur significant additional costs, and failure to comply with such requirements could result in the shutdown of the non-complying facility, the imposition of liens, fines, and/or civil or criminal liability.

Public utilities under the Federal Power Act are required to obtain FERC acceptance of their rate schedules for wholesale sales of electricity.  Each of the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants that generates electricity, as well as Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC, is a “public utility” under the Federal Power Act by virtue of making wholesale sales of electric energy and/or owning wholesale electric transmission facilities.  The FERC has granted these generating and power marketing companies the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates.  The FERC’s orders that grant the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating and power marketing companies market-based rate authority reserve the right to revoke or revise that authority if the FERC subsequently determines that the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business can exercise market power in transmission or generation, create barriers to entry, or engage in abusive affiliate transactions.  In addition, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ market-based sales are subject to certain market behavior rules, and if any of its generating and power marketing companies were deemed to have violated one of those rules, they would be subject to potential disgorgement of profits associated with the violation and/or suspension or revocation of their market-based rate authority and potential penalties of up to $1.29 million per day per violation.  If the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating or power marketing companies were to lose their market-based rate authority, such companies would be required to obtain the FERC’s acceptance of a cost-of-service rate schedule and could become subject to the accounting, record-keeping, and reporting requirements that are imposed on utilities with cost-based rate schedules.  This could have an adverse effect on the rates the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business charges for power from its facilities.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is also affected by legislative and regulatory changes, as well as changes to market design, market rules, tariffs, cost allocations, and bidding rules imposed by the existing Independent System Operators.  The Independent System Operators that oversee most of the wholesale power markets may impose, and in the future may continue to impose, mitigation, including price limitations, offer caps and other mechanisms, to address some of the volatility and the potential exercise of market power in these markets.  These types of price limitations and other regulatory mechanisms may have an adverse effect on the profitability of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business’ generation facilities that sell energy and capacity into the wholesale power markets. For further information regarding federal, state, and local laws and regulation applicable to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Regulation of Entergy’s Business” section in Part I, Item 1.

The regulatory environment applicable to the electric power industry is subject to changes as a result of restructuring initiatives at both the state and federal levels. Entergy cannot predict the future design of the wholesale power markets or the ultimate effect that the changing regulatory environment will have on the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.  In addition, in some of these markets, interested parties have proposed material market design changes, including the elimination of a single clearing price mechanism, have raised claims that the competitive marketplace is not working because energy prices in wholesale markets exceed the marginal cost of operating nuclear power plants, and have made proposals to re-regulate the markets, impose a generation tax, or require divestitures by generating companies to reduce their market share.  Other proposals to re-regulate may be made and legislative or other attention to the electric power market restructuring process may delay or reverse the deregulation process, which could require material changes to business planning models.  If competitive restructuring of the electric power markets is reversed, modified, discontinued, or delayed, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected.
298

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


The power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to impairment charges in certain circumstances, which could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

Entergy reviews long-lived assets held in all of its business segments whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that recoverability of these assets is uncertain.  Generally, the determination of recoverability is based on the undiscounted net cash flows expected to result from the operations of such assets.  Projected net cash flows depend on the expected operating life of the assets, the future operating costs associated with the assets, the efficiency and availability of the assets and generating units, and the future market and price for energy and capacity over the remaining life of the assets.  In particular, the remaining assets of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to further impairment in connection with the closure and sale of its nuclear power plants. Moreover, prior to the closure and sale of these plants, the failure of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to achieve forecasted operating results and cash flows, an unfavorable change in forecasted operating results or cash flows, a reduction in the expected remaining useful life of a unit, or a decline in observable industry market multiples could all result in potential additional impairment charges for the affected assets.

If Entergy concludes that any of its nuclear power plants is unlikely to operate through its planned shutdown date, which conclusion would be based on a variety of factors, such a conclusion could result in a further impairment of part or all of the carrying value of the plant.  Any impairment charge taken by Entergy with respect to its long-lived assets, including the remaining power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, would likely be material in the quarter that the charge is taken and could otherwise have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. For further information regarding evaluating long-lived assets for impairment, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates - Impairment of Long-lived Assets” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries and for further discussion of the impairment charges, see Note 14 to the financial statements.

General Business

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Entergy and the Utility operating companies depend on access to the capital markets and, at times, may face potential liquidity constraints, which could make it more difficult to handle future contingencies such as natural disasters or substantial increases in gas and fuel prices.  Disruptions in the capital and credit markets may adversely affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to meet liquidity needs, access capital and operate and grow their businesses, and the cost of capital.

Entergy’s business is capital intensive and dependent upon its ability to access capital at reasonable rates and other terms.  At times there are also spikes in the price for natural gas and other commodities that increase the liquidity requirements of the Utility operating companies and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  In addition, Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity needs could significantly increase in the event of a hurricane or other weather-related or unforeseen disaster similar to that experienced in Entergy’s service territory with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike in 2008, Hurricane Isaac in 2012, and Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta in 2020.  The occurrence of one or more contingencies, including a delay in regulatory recovery of fuel or purchased power costs or storm restoration costs, an acceleration of payments or decreased credit lines, less cash flow from operations than expected, changes in regulation or governmental policy (including tax and trade policy), or other unknown events, could cause the financing needs of Entergy and its subsidiaries to increase.  In addition, accessing the debt capital markets more frequently in these situations may result in an increase in leverage.  Material leverage increases could negatively affect the credit ratings of Entergy and the Utility operating companies, which in turn could negatively affect access to the capital markets.
299

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


The inability to raise capital on favorable terms, particularly during times of high interest rates, and uncertainty or reduced liquidity in the capital markets, could negatively affect Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to maintain and to expand their businesses.  Access to capital markets could be restricted and/or borrowing costs could be increased due to certain sources of debt and equity capital being unwilling to invest in companies that experience extreme weather events, that rely on fossil fuels or offerings to fund fossil fuel projects, or due to risks related to climate change. Events beyond Entergy’s control may create uncertainty that could increase its cost of capital or impair its ability to access the capital markets, including the ability to draw on its bank credit facilities.  Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the degree of success they will have in renewing or replacing their credit facilities as they come up for renewal.  Moreover, the size, terms, and covenants of any new credit facilities may not be comparable to, and may be more restrictive than, existing facilities.  If Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to access the credit and capital markets on terms that are reasonable, they may have to delay raising capital, issue shorter-term securities and/or bear an unfavorable cost of capital, which, in turn, could impact their ability to grow their businesses, decrease earnings, significantly reduce financial flexibility and/or limit Entergy Corporation’s ability to sustain its current common stock dividend level.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

A downgrade in Entergy Corporations or its subsidiariescredit ratings could negatively affect Entergy Corporations and its subsidiariesability to access capital and/or could require Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries to post collateral, accelerate certain payments, or repay certain indebtedness.

There are a number of factors that rating agencies evaluate to arrive at credit ratings for each of Entergy Corporation and the Registrant Subsidiaries, including each Registrant’s regulatory framework, ability to recover costs and earn returns, diversification and financial strength and liquidity.  If one or more rating agencies downgrade Entergy Corporation’s, any of the Utility operating companies’, or System Energy’s ratings, particularly below investment grade, borrowing costs would increase, the potential pool of investors and funding sources would likely decrease, and cash or letter of credit collateral demands may be triggered by the terms of a number of commodity contracts, leases, and other agreements.

Most of Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ suppliers and counterparties require sufficient creditworthiness to enter into transactions.  If Entergy Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ ratings decline, particularly below investment grade, or if certain counterparties believe Entergy Corporation or the Utility operating companies are losing creditworthiness and demand adequate assurance under fuel, gas, and purchased power contracts, the counterparties may require posting of collateral in cash or letters of credit, prepayment for fuel, gas or purchased power or accelerated payment, or counterparties may decline business with Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries. At December 31, 2020 based on power prices at that time, Entergy had liquidity exposure of $62 million under the guarantees in place supporting Entergy Wholesale Commodities transactions and $6 million of posted cash collateral. In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation’s credit rating to below investment grade, based on power prices as of December 31, 2020, Entergy would have been required to provide approximately $30 million of additional cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements. As of December 31, 2020, the liquidity exposure associated with Entergy Wholesale Commodities assurance requirements, including return of previously posted collateral from counterparties, would increase by $22 million for a $1 per MMBtu increase in gas prices in both the short- and long-term markets.

Recent U.S. tax legislation may materially adversely affect Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and CARES Act of 2020 significantly changed the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, including taxation of U.S. corporations, by, among other things, reducing the federal corporate income tax rate, limiting interest deductions, and altering the expensing of capital expenditures. The interpretive
300

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

guidance issued by the IRS and state tax authorities may be inconsistent with Entergy’s own interpretation and the legislation could be subject to amendments, which could lessen or increase certain impacts of the legislation.

As further described in Note 3 to the financial statements, as a result of amortization of accumulated deferred income taxes and payment of such amounts to customers in 2019, Entergy’s net regulatory liability for income taxes balance is $1.6 billion as of December 31, 2020. Depending on the outcome of IRS examinations or tax positions and elections that Entergy may make, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries may be required to record additional charges or credits to income tax expense. Further, there may be other material effects resulting from the legislation that have not been identified.

See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on 2018, 2019 and 2020 results of operations and financial condition, the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the regulatory proceedings that have considered the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Changes in taxation as well as the inherent difficulty in quantifying potential tax effects of business decisions could negatively impact Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Entergy and its subsidiaries make judgments regarding the potential tax effects of various transactions and results of operations to estimate their obligations to taxing authorities.  These tax obligations include income, franchise, real estate, sales and use, and employment-related taxes.  These judgments include provisions for potential adverse outcomes regarding tax positions that have been taken.  Entergy and its subsidiaries also estimate their ability to utilize tax benefits, including those in the form of carryforwards for which the benefits have already been reflected in the financial statements.  Changes in federal, state, or local tax laws, adverse tax audit results or adverse tax rulings on positions taken by Entergy and its subsidiaries could negatively affect Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. For further information regarding Entergy’s income taxes, see Note 3 to the financial statements.

Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to successfully execute on their business strategies, including their ability to complete strategic transactions, is subject to significant risks, and, as a result, they may be unable to achieve some or all of the anticipated results of such strategies, which could materially affect their future prospects, results of operations, and benefits that they anticipate from such transactions.

Entergy and its subsidiaries’ future prospects and results of operations significantly depend on their ability to successfully implement their business strategies, which are subject to business, regulatory, economic, and other risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond their control. As a result, Entergy and its subsidiaries may be unable to fully achieve the anticipated results of such strategies.

Additionally, Entergy and its subsidiaries have pursued and may continue to pursue strategic transactions including merger, acquisition, divestiture, joint venture, restructuring, or other strategic transactions. For example, Entergy has entered into an agreement to sell its equity interests in the subsidiary that owns the Palisades Nuclear Plant and the decommissioned Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant and an agreement to sell the equity interests of Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3, in each case after each of the plants has been shut down and defueled. Also, a significant portion of Entergy’s utility business over the next several years includes the construction and/or purchase of a variety of generating units. These transactions and plans are or may become subject to regulatory approval and other material conditions or contingencies. The failure to complete these transactions or plans or any future strategic transaction successfully or on a timely basis could have an adverse effect on Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ financial condition or results of operations and the market’s perception of Entergy’s ability to execute its strategy. Further, these transactions, and any completed or future strategic transactions, involve substantial risks, including the following:

301

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

acquired businesses or assets may not produce revenues, earnings, or cash flow at anticipated levels;
acquired businesses or assets could have environmental, permitting, or other problems for which contractual protections prove inadequate;
Entergy and/or its subsidiaries may assume liabilities that were not disclosed to them, that exceed their estimates, or for which their rights to indemnification from the seller are limited;
Entergy may experience issues integrating businesses into its internal controls over financial reporting;
the disposition of a business, including Entergy’s planned exit from the merchant power business, could divert management’s attention from other business concerns;
Entergy and/or its subsidiaries may be unable to obtain the necessary regulatory or governmental approvals to close a transaction, such approvals may be granted subject to terms that are unacceptable, or Entergy or its subsidiaries otherwise may be unable to achieve anticipated regulatory treatment of any such transaction or acquired business or assets; and
Entergy or its subsidiaries otherwise may be unable to achieve the full strategic and financial benefits that they anticipate from the transaction, or such benefits may be delayed or may not occur at all.

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be successful in managing these or any other significant risks that they may encounter in acquiring or divesting a business, or engaging in other strategic transactions, which could have a material effect on their business, financial condition or results of operations.

The completion of capital projects, including the construction of power generation facilities, and other capital improvements involve substantial risks.  Should such efforts be unsuccessful, the financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity of Entergy and the Utility operating companies could be materially affected.

Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ ability to complete capital projects, including the construction of power generation facilities, or make other capital improvements, in a timely manner and within budget is contingent upon many variables and subject to substantial risks.  These variables include, but are not limited to, project management expertise, escalating costs for materials, labor, and environmental compliance, and reliance on suppliers for timely and satisfactory performance.  Delays in obtaining permits, shortages in materials and qualified labor, levels of public support or opposition, suppliers and contractors not performing as expected or required under their contracts and/or experiencing financial problems that inhibit their ability to fulfill their obligations under contracts, changes in the scope and timing of projects, poor quality initial cost estimates from contractors, the inability to raise capital on favorable terms, changes in commodity prices affecting revenue, fuel costs, or materials costs,  downward changes in the economy, changes in law or regulation, including environmental compliance requirements, and other events beyond the control of the Utility operating companies or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may occur that may materially affect the schedule, cost, and performance of these projects.  If these projects or other capital improvements are significantly delayed or become subject to cost overruns or cancellation, Entergy and the Utility operating companies could incur additional costs and termination payments, or face increased risk of potential write-off of the investment in the project.  In addition, the Utility operating companies could be exposed to higher costs and market volatility, which could affect cash flow and cost recovery, should their respective regulators decline to approve the construction of the project or new generation needed to meet the reliability needs of customers at the lowest reasonable cost.

For further information regarding capital expenditure plans and other uses of capital in connection with capital projects, including the potential construction and/or purchase of additional generation supply sources within the Utility operating companies’ service territory, and as to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy and each of the Registrant Subsidiaries.

302

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Failure to attract, retain and manage an appropriately qualified workforce could negatively affect Entergy or its subsidiaries’ results of operations.

We rely on a large and changing workforce of team members, including employees, contractors and temporary staffing. Certain events, such as an aging workforce, mismatching of skill sets, failing to appropriately anticipate future workforce needs, or the unavailability of contract resources may lead to operating challenges and increased costs. The challenges include lack of resources, loss of knowledge base, and the time required for skill development. In this case, costs, including costs for contractors to replace employees, productivity costs, and safety costs, may increase. Failure to hire and adequately train replacement employees, or the future availability and cost of contract labor may adversely affect the ability to manage and operate the business, especially considering the workforce needs associated with nuclear generation facilities and new skills required to operate a modernized, technology-enabled power grid. If Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to successfully attract, retain, and manage an appropriately qualified workforce, their results of operations, financial position, and cash flows could be negatively affected.

The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs to fulfill their obligations related to environmental and other matters.

The businesses in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business operate are subject to extensive environmental regulation by local, state, and federal authorities.  These laws and regulations affect the manner in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business conduct their operations and make capital expenditures.  These laws and regulations also affect how the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business manage air emissions, discharges to water, wetlands impacts, solid and hazardous waste storage and disposal, cooling and service water intake, the protection of threatened and endangered species, certain migratory birds and eagles, hazardous materials transportation, and similar matters.  Federal, state, and local authorities continually revise these laws and regulations, and the laws and regulations are subject to judicial interpretation and to the permitting and enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies.  Developing and implementing plans for facility compliance with these requirements can lead to capital, personnel, and operation and maintenance expenditures.  Violations of these requirements can subject the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to enforcement actions, capital expenditures to bring existing facilities into compliance, additional operating costs or operating restrictions to achieve compliance, remediation and clean-up costs, civil penalties, and exposure to third parties’ claims for alleged health or property damages or for violations of applicable permits or standards.  In addition, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business potentially are subject to liability under these laws for the costs of remediation of environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned or operated by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities and of property contaminated by hazardous substances they generate.  The Utility operating companies currently are involved in proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been released and may be subject to additional proceedings in the future.  The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to environmental compliance.

Emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, mercury, particulates, greenhouse gases, and other regulated air emissions from generating plants potentially are subject to increased regulation, controls, and mitigation expenses.  In addition, existing air regulations and programs promulgated by the EPA often are challenged legally, or are revised or withdrawn by the EPA, sometimes resulting in large-scale changes to anticipated regulatory regimes and the resulting need to shift course, both operationally and economically, depending on the nature of the changes.  Risks relating to global climate change, initiatives to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions, and water availability issues are discussed below.

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be able to obtain or maintain all required environmental regulatory approvals.  If there is a delay in obtaining any required environmental regulatory approvals, or if Entergy and its subsidiaries fail to obtain, maintain, or comply with any such approval, the operation of its facilities could be
303

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

stopped or become subject to additional costs.  For further information regarding environmental regulation and environmental matters, see the “Regulation of Entergys Business– Environmental Regulation” section of Part I, Item 1.

The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs related to reliability standards.

Entergy’s business is subject to extensive and mandatory reliability standards.  Such standards, which are established by the NERC, the SERC, and other regional enforcement entities, are approved by the FERC and frequently are reviewed, amended, and supplemented.  Failure to comply with such standards could result in the imposition of fines or civil penalties, and potential exposure to third party claims for alleged violations of such standards.  The standards, as well as the laws and regulations that govern them, are subject to judicial interpretation and to the enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies.  In addition to exposure to civil penalties and fines, the Utility operating companies have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to compliance with new and existing reliability standards, including costs associated with the Utility operating companies’ transmission system and generation assets.  In addition, the retail regulators of the Utility operating companies possess the jurisdiction, and in some cases have exercised such jurisdiction, to impose standards governing the reliable operation of the Utility operating companies’ distribution systems, including penalties if these standards are not met. The changes to the reliability standards applicable to the electric power industry are ongoing, and Entergy cannot predict the ultimate effect that the reliability standards will have on its Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Weather, economic conditions, technological developments, and other factors may have a material impact on electricity and gas usage and otherwise materially affect the Utility operating companiesresults of operations and system reliability.

Temperatures above normal levels in the summer tend to increase electric cooling demand and revenues, and temperatures below normal levels in the winter tend to increase electric and gas heating demand and revenues.  As a corollary, mild temperatures in either season tend to decrease energy usage and resulting revenues.  Higher consumption levels coupled with seasonal pricing differentials typically cause the Utility operating companies to report higher revenues in the third quarter of the fiscal year than in the other quarters.  Extreme weather conditions including hurricanes or tropical storms, flooding events, or ice storms may stress the Utility operating companies’ generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on their ability to meet peak customer demand, increased regulatory oversight, and reduced customer satisfaction.  These extreme conditions could have a material effect on the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

Entergy’s electricity sales volumes are affected by a number of factors including weather and economic conditions, trends in energy efficiency, new technologies, and self-generation alternatives, including the willingness and ability of large industrial customers to develop co-generation facilities that greatly reduce their grid demand. Some of these factors are inherently cyclical or temporary in nature, such as the weather or economic conditions, and rarely have a long-lasting effect on Entergy’s operating results.  Others, such as the organic turnover of appliances and their replacement with more efficient ones, adoption of newer technologies including smart thermostats, new building codes, distributed energy resources, energy storage, demand side management, and rooftop solar are having a more permanent effect by reducing sales growth rates from historical norms. As a result of these emerging efficiencies and technologies, the Utility operating companies may lose customers or experience lower average use per customer in the residential and commercial classes, and continuing advances have the potential to further limit sales growth in the future. The Utility operating companies also may face competition from other companies offering products and services to Entergy’s customers. Electricity sales to industrial
304

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

customers, in particular, benefit from steady economic growth and favorable commodity markets; however, industrial sales are sensitive to changes in conditions in the markets in which its customers operate.  Negative changes in any of these or other factors, particularly sustained economic downturns or sluggishness, have the potential to result in slower sales growth or sales declines and increased bad debt expense, which could materially affect Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

The effects of climate change, environmental and regulatory obligations intended to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions or increase clean or renewable energy requirements or to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions, or achieving voluntary climate commitments could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.

In an effort to address climate change concerns, some federal, state, and local authorities are calling for additional laws and regulations aimed at known or suspected causes of climate change.  For example, in response to the United States Supreme Court’s 2007 decision holding that the EPA has authority to regulate emissions of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” under the Clean Air Act, the EPA, various environmental interest groups, and other organizations focused considerable attention on CO2 emissions from power generation facilities and their potential role in climate change.  Since that ruling, the EPA has promulgated regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions from certain vehicles, and from new, existing, and significantly modified stationary sources of emissions, including electric generating units. As examples of state action, in the Northeast, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative establishes a cap on CO2 emissions from electric power plants and requires generators to purchase emission permits to cover their CO2 emissions, and a similar program has been developed in California. In Louisiana, the Office of the Governor announced the creation of a Climate Initiatives Task Force and issued an executive order that established a path to net-zero emissions by 2050 while the City Council of New Orleans passed a renewable and clean portfolio standard that sets a goal of net-zero emissions by 2040 and absolute zero emissions by 2050. The impact that continued changes in the governmental response to climate change risk will have on existing and pending environmental laws and regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions is currently unclear.

Developing and implementing plans for compliance with greenhouse gas emissions reduction, clean/renewable energy requirements, or for achieving voluntary climate commitments can lead to additional capital, personnel, and operation and maintenance expenditures and could significantly affect the economic position of existing facilities and proposed projects. The operations of low or non-emitting generating units (such as nuclear units) at lower than expected capacity factors could require increased generation from higher emitting units, thus increasing the company’s greenhouse gas emission rate. Moreover, long-term planning to meet environmental requirements can be negatively impacted and costs may increase to the extent laws and regulations change prior to full implementation.  These requirements could, in turn, lead to changes in the planning or operations of balancing authorities or organized markets in areas where the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities do business. Violations of such requirements may subject Entergy Wholesale Commodities and the Utility operating companies to enforcement actions, capital expenditures to bring existing facilities into compliance, additional operating costs or operating restrictions to achieve compliance, civil penalties, and exposure to third parties’ claims for alleged health or property damages or for violations of applicable permits or standards.  To the extent Entergy believes any of these costs are recoverable in rates, however, additional material rate increases for customers could be resisted by Entergy’s regulators and, in extreme cases, Entergy’s regulators might attempt to deny or defer timely recovery of these costs.  Future changes in regulation or policies governing the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases or mix of generation sources could (i) result in significant additional costs to Entergy’s utility operating companies, their suppliers or customers, (ii) make some of Entergy’s electric generating units uneconomical to maintain or operate, (iii) result in the early retirement of generation facilities and stranded costs if Entergy’s utility operating companies are unable to fully recover the costs and investment in generation and (iv) could increase the difficulty that Entergy and its utility operating companies have with obtaining or maintaining required environmental regulatory approvals, each of which could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy and its subsidiaries.  In addition, lawsuits have occurred or are reasonably expected against emitters of greenhouse gases alleging that these
305

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

companies are liable for personal injuries and property damage caused by climate change.  These lawsuits may seek injunctive relief, monetary compensation, and punitive damages.

In addition to the regulatory and financial risks associated with climate change discussed above, potential physical risks from climate change include an increase in sea level, wind and storm surge damages, wildfires, wetland and barrier island erosion, risks of flooding and changes in weather conditions, (such as increases in precipitation, drought, or changes in average temperatures), and potential increased impacts of extreme weather conditions or storms.  Entergy subsidiaries own assets in, and serve, communities that are at risk from sea level rise, changes in weather conditions, storms, and loss of the protection offered by coastal wetlands.  A significant portion of the nation’s oil and gas infrastructure is located in these areas and susceptible to storm damage that could be aggravated by the physical impacts of climate change, which could give rise to fuel supply interruptions and price spikes. Entergy and its subsidiaries also face the risk that climate change could impact the availability and quality of water supply necessary for operations.

These and other physical changes could result in changes in customer demand, increased costs associated with repairing and maintaining generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on the Entergy System’s ability to meet peak customer demand, more frequent and longer lasting outages, increased regulatory oversight, and lower customer satisfaction.  Also, to the extent that climate change adversely impacts the economic health of a region or results in energy conservation or demand side management programs, it may adversely impact customer demand and revenues.  Such physical or operational risks could have a material effect on Entergy’s, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’, System Energy’s, and the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

In September 2020, Entergy voluntarily committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Technology research and development, innovation, and advancement are critical to Entergy’s ability to achieve this commitment. Moreover, Entergy cannot predict the ultimate impact of achieving this objective, or the various implementation aspects, on its system reliability, or its results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Continued and future availability and quality of water for cooling, process, and sanitary uses could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.

Water is a vital natural resource that is also critical to the Utility operating companies’, System Energy’s, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ business operations.  Entergy’s facilities use water for cooling, boiler make-up, sanitary uses, potable supply, and many other uses.  Entergy’s Utility operating companies also own and/or operate hydroelectric facilities.  Accordingly, water availability and quality are critical to Entergy’s business operations.  Impacts to water availability or quality could negatively impact both operations and revenues.

Entergy secures water through various mechanisms (ground water wells, surface waters intakes, municipal supply, etc.) and operates under the provisions and conditions set forth by the provider and/or regulatory authorities.  Entergy also obtains and operates in substantial compliance with water discharge permits issued under various provisions of the Clean Water Act and/or state water pollution control provisions. Regulations and authorizations for both water intake and use and for waste discharge can become more stringent in times of water shortages, low flows in rivers, low lake levels, low groundwater aquifer volumes, and similar conditions.  The increased use of water by industry, agriculture, and the population at large, population growth, and the potential impacts of climate change on water resources may cause water use restrictions that affect Entergy and its subsidiaries.

306

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be adequately hedged against changes in commodity prices, which could materially affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

To manage near-term financial exposure related to commodity price fluctuations, Entergy and its subsidiaries, including the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, may enter into contracts to hedge portions of their purchase and sale commitments, fuel requirements, and inventories of natural gas, uranium and its conversion and enrichment, coal, refined products, and other commodities, within established risk management guidelines.  As part of this strategy, Entergy and its subsidiaries may utilize fixed- and variable-price forward physical purchase and sales contracts, futures, financial swaps, and option contracts traded in the over-the-counter markets or on exchanges.  However, Entergy and its subsidiaries normally cover only a portion of the exposure of their assets and positions to market price volatility, and the coverage will vary over time.  In addition, Entergy also elects to leave certain volumes during certain years unhedged.  To the extent Entergy and its subsidiaries have unhedged positions, fluctuating commodity prices can materially affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ results of operations and financial position.

Although Entergy and its subsidiaries devote a considerable effort to these risk management strategies, they cannot eliminate all the risks associated with these activities.  As a result of these and other factors, Entergy and its subsidiaries cannot predict with precision the impact that risk management decisions may have on their business, results of operations, or financial position.

Entergy’s over-the-counter financial derivatives are subject to rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that are designed to promote transparency, mitigate systemic risk, and protect against market abuse. Entergy cannot predict the impact any proposed or not fully-implemented final rules will have on its ability to hedge its commodity price risk or on over-the-counter derivatives markets as a whole, but such rules and regulations could have a material effect on Entergy's risk exposure, as well as reduce market liquidity and further increase the cost of hedging activities.

Entergy has guaranteed or indemnified the performance of a portion of the obligations relating to hedging and risk management activities.  Reductions in Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ credit quality or changes in the market prices of energy commodities could increase the cash or letter of credit collateral required to be posted in connection with hedging and risk management activities, which could materially affect Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ liquidity and financial position.

The Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties may not meet their obligations, which may materially affect the Utility operating companies and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

The hedging and risk management practices of the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties that owe Entergy and its subsidiaries money, energy, or other commodities will not perform their obligations.  Currently, some hedging agreements contain provisions that require the counterparties to provide credit support to secure all or part of their obligations to Entergy or its subsidiaries.  If the counterparties to these arrangements fail to perform, Entergy or its subsidiaries may enforce and recover the proceeds from the credit support provided and acquire alternative hedging arrangements, which credit support may not always be adequate to cover the related obligations.  In such event, Entergy and its subsidiaries might incur losses in addition to amounts, if any, already paid to the counterparties.  In addition, the credit commitments of Entergy’s lenders under its bank facilities may not be honored for a variety of reasons, including unexpected periods of financial distress affecting such lenders, which could materially affect the adequacy of its liquidity sources.

307

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Market performance and other changes may decrease the value of benefit plan assets, which then could require additional funding and result in increased benefit plan costs.

The performance of the capital markets affects the values of the assets held in trust under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans.  A decline in the market value of the assets may increase the funding requirements relating to Entergy’s benefit plan liabilities and also result in higher benefit costs. As the value of the assets decreases, the “expected return on assets” component of benefit costs decreases, resulting in higher benefits costs. Additionally, asset losses are incorporated into benefit costs over time, thus increasing benefits costs.  Volatility in the capital markets has affected the market value of these assets, which may affect Entergy’s planned levels of contributions in the future.  Additionally, changes in interest rates affect the liabilities under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans; as interest rates decrease, the liabilities increase, potentially requiring additional funding and recognition of higher liability carrying costs.  The funding requirements of the obligations related to the pension benefit plans can also increase as a result of changes in, among other factors, retirement rates, life expectancy assumptions, or Federal regulations.  For further information regarding Entergy’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans, refer to the “Critical Accounting Estimates– Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy and each of its Registrant Subsidiaries and Note 11 to the financial statements.

The litigation environment in the states in which certain Entergy subsidiaries operate poses a significant risk to those businesses.

Entergy and its subsidiaries are involved in the ordinary course of business in a number of lawsuits involving employment, commercial, asbestos, hazardous material and ratepayer matters, and injuries and damages issues, among other matters.  The states in which the Utility operating companies operate have proven to be unusually litigious environments.  Judges and juries in these states have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases.  Entergy and its subsidiaries use legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against them, but the litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk.

Terrorist attacks, cyber attacks, system failures or data breaches of Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ or our suppliers’ technology systems may adversely affect Entergy’s results of operations.

Entergy and its subsidiaries operate in a business that requires evolving information technology systems that include sophisticated data collection, processing systems, software, network infrastructure, and other technologies that are becoming more complex and may be subject to mandatory and prescriptive reliability and security standards. The functionality of Entergy’s technology systems depends on its own and its suppliers’ and their contractors’ technology. Suppliers’ and their contractors’ technology systems to which Entergy is connected directly or indirectly support a variety of business processes and activities to store sensitive data, including (i) intellectual property, (ii) proprietary business information, (iii) personally identifiable information of customers and employees, and (iv) data with respect to invoicing and the collection of payments, accounting, procurement, and supply chain activities. Any significant failure or malfunction of such information technology systems could result in loss of data or disruptions of operations.

There have been attacks and threats of attacks on energy infrastructure by cyber actors, including those associated with foreign governments. As an operator of critical infrastructure, Entergy and its subsidiaries face heightened risk of an act or threat of terrorism, cyber attacks, and data breaches, whether as a direct or indirect act against one of Entergy’s generation, transmission or distribution facilities, operations centers, infrastructure, or information technology systems used to manage, monitor, and transport power to customers and perform day-to-day business functions. An actual act could affect Entergy’s ability to operate, including its ability to operate the information technology systems and network infrastructure on which it relies to conduct business.

Given the rapid technological advancements of existing and emerging threats, Entergy’s technology systems remain inherently vulnerable despite implementations and enhancements of the multiple layers of security
308

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

and controls. If Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ technology systems were compromised and unable to detect or recover in a timely fashion to a normal state of operations, Entergy or its subsidiaries could be unable to perform critical business functions that are essential to the company’s well-being and could result in a loss of its confidential, sensitive, and proprietary information, including personal information of its customers, employees, suppliers, and others in Entergy’s care.

Any such attacks, failures or data breaches could have a material effect on Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ business, financial condition, results of operations or reputation. Although we purchase insurance coverage for cyber-attacks or data breaches, such insurance may not be adequate to cover all losses that might arise in connection with these events. Such events may also expose Entergy to an increased risk of litigation (and associated damages and fines).

(Entergy New Orleans)

The effect of higher purchased gas cost charges to customers taking gas service may adversely affect Entergy New Orleans’s results of operations and liquidity.

Gas rates charged to retail gas customers are comprised primarily of purchased gas cost charges, which provide no return or profit to Entergy New Orleans, and distribution charges, which provide a return or profit to the utility.  Distribution charges recover fixed costs on a volumetric basis and, thus, are affected by the amount of gas sold to customers.  When purchased gas cost charges increase due to higher gas procurement costs, customer usage may decrease, especially in weaker economic times, resulting in lower distribution charges for Entergy New Orleans, which could adversely affect results of operations. Purchased gas cost charges, which comprise most of a customer’s bill and may be adjusted monthly, represent gas commodity costs that Entergy New Orleans recovers from its customers.  Entergy New Orleans’s cash flows can be affected by differences between the time period when gas is purchased and the time when ultimate recovery from customers occurs.

(System Energy)

System Energy owns and, through an affiliate, operates a single nuclear generating facility, and it is dependent on sales to affiliated companies for all of its revenues. Certain contractual arrangements relating to System Energy, the affiliated companies, and these revenues are the subject of ongoing litigation and regulatory proceedings.

System Energy’s operating revenues are derived from the allocation of the capacity, energy, and related costs associated with its 90% ownership/leasehold interest in Grand Gulf.  Charges under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are paid by the Utility operating companies as consideration for their respective entitlements to receive capacity and energy.  The useful economic life of Grand Gulf is finite and is limited by the terms of its operating license, which expires in November 2044. System Energy’s financial condition depends both on the receipt of payments from the Utility operating companies under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and on the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is currently the subject of several litigation proceedings at the FERC, including a challenge with respect to System Energy’s uncertain tax positions, sale leaseback arrangement, authorized return on equity and capital structure, and a request in a separate proceeding for FERC to initiate a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC has also authorized the filing of a prudence complaint at the FERC relating to Grand Gulf operations. Entergy cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings nor can it predict whether any outcome could have a material effect on Entergy’s or System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the proceedings. The Utility operating companies have agreed to implement certain protocols for providing retail regulators with information regarding rates billed under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

For information regarding the Unit Power Sales Agreement, the sale and leaseback transactions and certain other agreements relating to the Entergy System companies’ support of System Energy, see Notes 5 and 8 to the
309

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

financial statements and the “Utility - System Energy and Related Agreements” section of Part I, Item 1.

(Entergy Corporation)

As a holding company, Entergy Corporation depends on cash distributions from its subsidiaries to meet its debt service and other financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock.

Entergy Corporation is a holding company with no material revenue generating operations of its own or material assets other than the stock of its subsidiaries. Accordingly, all of its operations are conducted by its subsidiaries. Entergy Corporation’s ability to satisfy its financial obligations, including the payment of interest and principal on its outstanding debt, and to pay dividends on its common stock depends on the payment to it of dividends or distributions by its subsidiaries. The subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay any dividends or make distributions to Entergy Corporation. The ability of such subsidiaries to make payments of dividends or distributions to Entergy Corporation depends on their results of operations and cash flows and other items affecting retained earnings, and on any applicable legal, regulatory, or contractual limitations on subsidiaries’ ability to pay such dividends or distributions. Prior to providing funds to Entergy Corporation, such subsidiaries have financial and regulatory obligations that must be satisfied, including among others, debt service and, in the case of Entergy Utility Holding Company and Entergy Texas, dividends and distributions on preferred securities. Any distributions from the Registrant Subsidiaries other than Entergy Texas and System Energy are paid directly to Entergy Utility Holding Company and are therefore subject to prior payment of distributions on its preferred securities.


310


ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The COVID-19 Pandemic

See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

February 2021 Winter Storms

See the “February 2021 Winter Storms” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the February 2021 winter storms. Entergy Arkansas’s preliminary estimate for the cost of mobilizing crews and restoring power is approximately $10 million. Natural gas purchases for Entergy Arkansas for February 1st through 25th, 2021 are approximately $105 million compared to natural gas purchases for February 2020 of $10 million.

Results of Operations

2020 Compared to 2019

Net Income

Net income decreased $17.7 million primarily due to lower volume/weather, a formula rate plan provision recorded in 2020 to reflect the 2019 historical year netting adjustment, and higher depreciation and amortization expenses, partially offset by higher retail electric price and lower other operation and maintenance expenses. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the 2019 historical year netting adjustment.

Operating Revenues

Following is an analysis of the change in operating revenues comparing 2020 to 2019:
Amount
(In Millions)
2019 operating revenues$2,259.6 
Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income(278.5)
Volume/weather(72.2)
Retail electric price57.4 
Return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers118.2 
2020 operating revenues$2,084.5

Entergy Arkansas’s results include revenues from rate mechanisms designed to recover fuel, purchased power, and other costs such that the revenues and expenses associated with these items generally offset and do not affect net income. “Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income” includes the revenue variance associated with these items.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to a decrease of 1,069 GWh, or 5%, in billed electricity usage, including decreased commercial and industrial usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales, partially offset by an increase in residential usage as a
311

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

result of the COVID-19 pandemic. See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to the $56.5 million annual formula rate plan increase related to the 2020 projected test year included in the 2019 formula rate plan filing effective with the first billing cycle of January 2020. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the formula rate plan filing.

The return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers resulted from the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes through a tax adjustment rider beginning in April 2018. In 2020, $8.1 million was returned to customers as compared to $126.3 million in 2019. There is no effect on net income as the reduction in operating revenues in each period was offset by a reduction in income tax expense. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Other Income Statement Variances

Nuclear refueling outage expenses decreased primarily due to the amortization of lower costs associated with the most recent outages as compared to previous outages.

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $18.3 million in nuclear generation expenses primarily due to lower nuclear labor costs, including contract labor, in part as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;
a decrease of $13.2 million in non-nuclear generation expenses primarily due to lower long-term service agreement expenses;
an $11.2 million write-off in 2019 of specific costs related to the potential construction of scrubbers at the White Bluff plant. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the write-off;
higher nuclear insurance refunds of $7.8 million;
a decrease of $5.9 million primarily due to contract costs in 2019 related to initiatives to explore new customer products and services; and
a decrease of $5.8 million in energy efficiency costs.

The decrease was partially offset by the effects of recording in 2019 a final judgment to resolve claims in the ANO damages case against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. The damages awarded include the reimbursement of approximately $11.9 million of spent nuclear fuel storage costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service.

Other income increased primarily due to changes in decommissioning trust fund investment activity.

Other regulatory credits - net for 2020 includes a provision of $43.5 million to reflect the 2019 historical year netting adjustment included in the APSC’s December 2020 order in the 2020 formula rate plan proceeding. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the 2020 formula rate plan proceeding.

The effective income tax rates were 16.3% for 2020 and (21.6%) for 2019. The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of 21% for 2019 was primarily due to the amortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. See Notes 2 and 3 to the financial statements for a discussion of the effects and regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 21% to the effective income tax rates.

312

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Entergy Arkansas’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of results of operations for 2019 compared to 2018.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018 were as follows:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period$3,519 $119 $6,216 
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities659,818 677,766 211,825 
Investing activities(795,709)(676,293)(688,727)
Financing activities324,500 1,927 470,805 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents188,609 3,400 (6,097)
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$192,128 $3,519 $119 

2020 Compared to 2019

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $17.9 million in 2020 primarily due to:

the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs;
lower collections of receivables from customers, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
the timing of payments to vendors.

The decrease was partially offset by:

a decrease in the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers in 2020 as compared to 2019. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act;
$25 million in proceeds received from the DOE in 2020 resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously expensed. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation; and
a decrease of $15.8 million in pension contributions in 2020. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.


313

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Investing Activities

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $119.4 million in 2020 primarily due to:

an increase of $79.5 million in storm spending;
an increase of $47.3 million in non-nuclear generation construction expenditures primarily due to increased spending on various projects in 2020;
an increase of $39.4 million in nuclear construction expenditures primarily as a result of work performed in 2020 on various ANO 2 outage projects;
an increase of $38.5 million as a result of fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements in the Utility business, material and service deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle; and
an increase of $30.3 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to investment in the reliability and infrastructure of Entergy Arkansas’s distribution system, including increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure.

The increase was partially offset by:

a decrease of $56 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a lower scope of work performed in 2020 as compared to 2019; and
$55 million in proceeds received from the DOE in 2020 resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously capitalized. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Financing Activities

Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $322.6 million in 2020 primarily due to:

issuances of $100 million of 4.0% Series mortgage bonds in March 2020 and $675 million of 2.65% Series mortgage bonds in September 2020;
money pool activity;
a decrease of $41.6 million in net long-term repayments in 2020 on the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility; and
a decrease of $20 million in common equity distributions in 2020 in order to maintain Entergy Arkansas’s capital structure.

The increase was partially offset by:

the issuance of $350 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds in March 2019;
the repayment in October 2020 of $200 million of 4.90% Series mortgage bonds due December 2052; and
the repayment in October 2020 of $125 million of 4.75% Series mortgage bonds due June 2063.

Decreases in Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool decreased by $21.6 million in 2020 compared to decreasing by $161.1 million in 2019. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.

See Note 5 to the financial statements for further details of long-term debt.


314

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Cash Flow” in Item 7 of Entergy Arkansas’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2019 compared to 2018.

Capital Structure

Entergy Arkansas’s debt to capital ratio is shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital ratio is primarily due to the net issuances of long-term debt in 2020.
 December 31,
2020
December 31,
2019
Debt to capital54.8 %53.0 %
Effect of excluding the securitization bonds— %— %
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)54.8 %53.0 %
Effect of subtracting cash(1.2 %)— %
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)53.6 %53.0 %

(a)Calculation excludes the securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy Arkansas.

Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents. Debt consists of short-term borrowings, finance lease obligations, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion. Capital consists of debt and equity. Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents. Entergy Arkansas uses the debt to capital ratios excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes they provide useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Arkansas’s financial condition because the securitization bonds, which have been repaid as of December 31, 2020, were non-recourse to Entergy Arkansas, as more fully described in Note 5 to the financial statements. Entergy Arkansas also uses the net debt to net capital ratio excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Arkansas’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy Arkansas’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.

Entergy Arkansas seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings.  To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a distribution, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the capital structure.  To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Arkansas may issue incremental debt or reduce distributions, or both, to maintain its capital structure.  In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as financing of large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing distributions, Entergy Arkansas may receive equity contributions to maintain its capital structure.

Uses of Capital

Entergy Arkansas requires capital resources for:

construction and other capital investments;
debt maturities or retirements;
working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel and purchased power costs; and
distribution and interest payments.

315

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Following are the amounts of Entergy Arkansas’s planned construction and other capital investments.
 202120222023
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:  
Generation$340 $355 $430 
Transmission40 45 190 
Distribution95 255 420 
Utility Support105 80 75 
Total$580 $735 $1,115 

Following are the amounts of Entergy Arkansas’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 20212022-20232024-2025After 2025Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)$611 $543 $581 $4,713 $6,448 
Operating leases (b)$14 $21 $15 $11 $61 
Finance leases (b)$3 $5 $3 $2 $13 
Purchase obligations (c)$452 $618 $509 $3,882 $5,461 

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.
(c)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Arkansas, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which are discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements.

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, Entergy Arkansas currently expects to contribute approximately $66.6 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $517 thousand to its other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2021, although the 2021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2021.  See “Critical Accounting Estimates– Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.

Also in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy Arkansas has $252 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions.  See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.

In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Arkansas includes specific investments in renewables such as the Searcy Solar Facility, Walnut Bend Solar Facility, and West Memphis Solar Facility; transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to enhance reliability and improve service to customers, including advanced meters and related investments; resource planning, including potential generation and renewables projects; system improvements; investments in ANO 1 and 2; software and security; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital. Management provides more information on long-term debt maturities in Note 5 to the financial statements.

316

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

As a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, Entergy Arkansas pays distributions from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.

Renewables

Searcy Solar Facility

In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas announced that it signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW solar energy facility that will be sited on approximately 800 acres in White County near Searcy, Arkansas.  The purchase is contingent upon, among other things, obtaining necessary approvals from applicable federal and state regulatory and permitting agencies.  The project is being constructed by a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources.  Entergy Arkansas will purchase the facility upon mechanical completion and after the other purchase contingencies have been met.  Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2021. In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. In September 2019 other parties filed testimony largely supporting the resource acquisition but disputing Entergy Arkansas’s proposed method of cost recovery. Entergy Arkansas filed its rebuttal testimony in October 2019. In February 2020, Entergy Arkansas, the Attorney General, and the APSC general staff filed a partial settlement agreement asking the APSC to approve, based on the record in the proceeding, all issues except certain issues that are submitted to the APSC for determination. In April 2020 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition of the Searcy Solar facility as being in the public interest, but declined to approve Entergy Arkansas’s preferred cost recovery rider mechanism, finding instead, based on the particular facts and circumstances presented, that the formula rate plan rider was a sufficient recovery mechanism for this resource.

Walnut Bend Solar Facility

In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the purchase of the 100 MW Walnut Bend Solar Facility is in the public interest. Entergy Arkansas requested a decision by the APSC by June 15, 2021 and primarily requests cost recovery through the formula rate plan rider. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2021. Closing is expected to occur in 2022.

West Memphis Solar Facility

In January 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the purchase of the 180 MW West Memphis Solar Facility is in the public interest. Entergy Arkansas requested a decision by the APSC by September 7, 2021 and primarily requests cost recovery through the formula rate plan rider. Closing is expected to occur in 2023.

Sources of Capital

Entergy Arkansas’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
debt or preferred membership interest issuances, including debt issuances to refund or retire currently outstanding or maturing indebtedness;
capital contributions; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.

Entergy Arkansas may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest rates are favorable.

317

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

All debt and common and preferred membership interest issuances by Entergy Arkansas require prior regulatory approval.  Debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in Entergy Arkansas’s bond indentures and other agreements.  Entergy Arkansas has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.

Entergy Arkansas’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
2020201920182017
(In Thousands)
$3,110($21,634)($182,738)($166,137)

See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.

Entergy Arkansas has a credit facility in the amount of $150 million scheduled to expire in September 2024. Entergy Arkansas also has a $25 million credit facility scheduled to expire in April 2021.  The $150 million credit facility includes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against $5 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, 2020, there were no cash borrowings and no letters of credit outstanding under the credit facilities. In addition, Entergy Arkansas is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO. As of December 31, 2020, a $1 million letter of credit was outstanding under Entergy Arkansas’s uncommitted letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the credit facilities.

The Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity has a credit facility in the amount of $80 million scheduled to expire in September 2022.  As of December 31, 2020, $12.2 million in loans were outstanding under the credit facility for the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility.

Entergy Arkansas obtained authorization from the FERC through July 2022 for short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $250 million at any time outstanding and borrowings by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s short-term borrowing limits. The long-term securities issuances of Entergy Arkansas are limited to amounts authorized by the FERC. The APSC has concurrent jurisdiction over Entergy Arkansas’s first mortgage bond/secured issuances. Entergy Arkansas has obtained long-term financing authorization from the FERC that extends through July 2022. Entergy Arkansas has obtained first mortgage bond/secured financing authorization from the APSC that extends through December 2022.

State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery

Retail Rates

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2018 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2019 calendar year. The filing showed Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2019 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. Additionally, the filing included the first netting adjustment under the current formula rate plan for the historical test year 2017, reflecting the change in formula rate plan revenues associated with actual 2017 results when compared to the allowed rate of return on equity. The filing included a projected $73.4 millionrevenue deficiency for 2019 and a $95.6 million revenue deficiency for the 2017 historical test year, for a total revenue requirement of $169 million for this filing. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is
318

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to four percent of total revenue, which originally was $65.4 million but was increased to $66.7 million based upon the APSC staff’s updated calculation of 2018 revenue. In October 2018, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed joint motions to approve a partial settlement agreement as to certain factual issues and agreed to brief contested legal issues. In November 2018 the APSC held a hearing and was briefed on a contested legal issue. In December 2018 the APSC issued a decision related to the initial legal brief, approved the partial settlement agreement and $66.7 million revenue requirement increase, as well as Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan, with updated rates going into effect for the first billing cycle of January 2019.

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.  In October 2019 other parties in the proceeding filed their errors and objections requesting certain adjustments to Entergy Arkansas’s filing that would reduce or eliminate Entergy Arkansas’s proposed revenue change. Entergy Arkansas filed its response addressing the requested adjustments in October 2019. In its response, Entergy Arkansas accepted certain of the adjustments recommended by the General Staff of the APSC that would reduce the proposed formula rate plan rider revenue change to $14 million. Entergy Arkansas disputed the remaining adjustments proposed by the parties. In October 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed a unanimous settlement agreement with the other parties in the proceeding seeking APSC approval of a revised total formula rate plan rider revenue change of $10.1 million. In its July 2019 formula rate plan filing, Entergy Arkansas proposed to recover an $11.2 million regulatory asset, amortized over five years, associated with specific costs related to the potential construction of scrubbers at the White Bluff plant. Although Entergy Arkansas does not concede that the regulatory asset lacks merit, for purposes of reaching a settlement on the total formula rate plan rider amount, Entergy Arkansas agreed not to include the White Bluff scrubber regulatory asset cost in the 2019 formula rate plan filing or future filings. Entergy Arkansas recorded a write-off in 2019 of the $11.2 million White Bluff scrubber regulatory asset. In December 2019 the APSC approved the settlement as being in the public interest and approved Entergy Arkansas’s compliance tariff effective with the first billing cycle of January 2020.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2020 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2021 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2021, as amended through subsequent filings in the proceeding, and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2019. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 projected year is 8.22% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $64.3 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2019 historical year was 9.07% resulting in a $23.9 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2021 projected year and 2019 historical year netting adjustment was $88.2 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to $74.3 million. In October 2020 other parties in the proceeding filed their errors
319

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

and objections recommending certain adjustments, and Entergy Arkansas filed responsive testimony disputing these adjustments. As part of the formula rate plan tariff the calculation for the revenue constraint was updated based on actual revenues which had the effect of reducing the initially-proposed $74.3 million revenue requirement increase to $72.6 million. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC a unanimous settlement agreement reached with the other parties that resolved all but one issue. As a result of the settlement agreement, Entergy Arkansas’s requested revenue increase was $68.4 million, including a $44.5 million increase for the projected 2021 year and a $23.9 million netting adjustment. The remaining issue litigated concerned the methodology used to calculate the netting adjustment within the formula rate plan. In December 2020 the APSC issued an order rejecting the netting adjustment method used by Entergy Arkansas. Applying the approach ordered by the APSC changed the netting adjustment for the 2019 historical year from a $23.9 million deficiency to $43.5 million excess. Overall, the decision reduced Entergy Arkansas’s revenue adjustment for 2021 to $1 million. In December 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing of the APSC’s decision, and in January 2021 the APSC granted further consideration of Entergy Arkansas’s petition. Based on the progress of the proceeding to date, in December 2020, Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory liability of $43.5 million to reflect the netting adjustment for 2019, as included in the APSC’s December 2020 order, which would be returned to customers in 2021. Also with the formula rate plan filing, Entergy Arkansas is requesting an extension of the formula rate plan rider for a second five-year term. Decisions by the APSC on the netting adjustment rehearing and the extension are expected in March 2021.

Internal Restructuring

In November 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy Arkansas to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. In July 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed a settlement, reached by all parties in the APSC proceeding, resolving all issues. The APSC approved the settlement agreement and restructuring in August 2018. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Entergy Arkansas will credit retail customers $39.6 million over six years, beginning in 2019. Entergy Arkansas also received the required FERC and NRC approvals.
In November 2018, Entergy Arkansas undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $32.7 million.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. converted from an Arkansas corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Arkansas, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Arkansas Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Arkansas Power), and Entergy Arkansas Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Arkansas Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Property, Inc., and Entergy Arkansas Power then changed its name to Entergy Arkansas, LLC. Entergy Arkansas, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. The transaction was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

320

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Production Cost Allocation Rider

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section below.  These costs cause an increase in Entergy Arkansas’s deferred fuel cost balance because Entergy Arkansas pays the costs over seven months but collects the costs from customers over twelve months.

In May 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider to recover the $3 million unrecovered retail balance as of December 31, 2013 and the $67.8 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment made in May 2014 as a result of the compliance filing pursuantNote 2 to the FERC’s February 2014 orders related to the bandwidth payments/receipts for the June - December 2005 period. In January 2015 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Arkansas’s request for recovery of the $3 million under-recovered amount based on the true-up of the production cost allocation rider and the $67.8 million May 2014 System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment subject to refund with interest, with recovery of these payments concluding with the last billing cycle in December 2015. The APSC also found that Entergy Arkansas is entitled to carrying charges pursuant to the current terms of the production cost allocation rider. Entergy Arkansas made its compliance filing pursuant to the order in January 2015 and the APSC issued its approval order, also in January 2015. The redetermined rate went into effect with the first billing cycle of February 2015.financial statements.

In May 2015, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of the production cost allocation rider, which included a $38 million payment made by Entergy Arkansas as a result of the FERC’s February 2014 order related to the comprehensive bandwidth recalculation for calendar year 2006, 2007, and 2008 production costs. The redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update was added to the redetermined rate from the 2014 production

311

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


cost allocation rider update and the combined rate was effective with the first billing cycle of July 2015. This combined rate was effective through December 2015. The collection of the remainder of the redetermined rate for the 2015 production cost allocation rider update continued through June 2016.

In May 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination pursuant to the production cost allocation rider, which reflected recovery of the production cost allocation rider true-up adjustment of the 2014 and 2015 unrecovered retail balance in the amount of $1.9 million. Additionally, the redetermined rates reflected the recovery of a $1.9 million System Agreement bandwidth remedy payment resulting from a compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s December 2015 order related to test year 2009 production costs. The rates for the 2016 production cost allocation rider update became effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and the rates were effective through June 2017.

In May 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination pursuant to the production cost allocation rider, which reflected a credit amount of $0.3 million resulting from a compliance filing pursuant to the FERC’s September 2016 order. Additionally, the redetermined rate reflected recovery of the production cost allocation rider true-up adjustment of the 2016 unrecovered retail balance in the amount of $0.3 million. Because of the small effect of the 2017 production cost allocation rider update, Entergy Arkansas proposed to reduce the effective period of the update to one month, July 2017. After the one month collection period, rates were set to zero for all rate classes for the period August 2017 through June 2018.


Energy Cost Recovery Rider


Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and purchased energy costs in monthly customer bills.  The rider utilizes the prior calendar-year energy costs and projected energy sales for the twelve-month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an energy cost rate, which is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over- or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy costs for the prior calendar year.  The energy cost recovery rider tariff also allows an interim rate request depending upon the level of over- or under-recovery of fuel and purchased energy costs.


In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its redetermination of itsupcoming energy cost rate redetermination filing that was subsequently filedmade in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs incurred in 2013 from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate. Therate $65.9 million is an estimate of the incremental fuel and replacement energy costs that Entergy Arkansas incurred in 2013 as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information iswas available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. TheIn February 2014 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request to retain that amount in February 2014.its deferred fuel balance. In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed for a change in rates pursuant to its formula rate plan rider. In that proceeding, the APSC approved a settlement agreement agreed upon by the parties, including a provision that requires Entergy Arkansas to initiate a regulatory proceeding for the purpose of recovering funds currently withheld from rates and related to the stator incident, including the $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs previously noted, subject to certain timelines and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.


In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination.



In March 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01547 per kWh to $0.01882 per kWh. The Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual redetermination filing requesting that the APSC suspend the proposed tariff to investigate the amount of the redetermination or, alternatively, to allow recovery subject to refund. Among the reasons the Attorney General cited for suspension were questions pertaining to how Entergy Arkansas forecasted sales and potential implications of the Tax Act. Entergy Arkansas replied to the Attorney General’s filing and stated that, to the extent there are questions pertaining to its load forecasting or the operation of the energy cost recovery rider, those issues exceed the scope of the instant rate redetermination. Entergy Arkansas also stated that potential effects of the Tax Act are appropriately considered in the APSC’s separate proceeding regarding potential implications of the tax law. The APSC general staff filed a reply to the Attorney General’s filing and agreed that Entergy Arkansas’s filing complied with the terms of the energy cost recovery rider. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2018. Subsequently in April 2018 the APSC issued an order declining to suspend Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider rate and declining to require further investigation at that time of the issues suggested by the Attorney General in the
312
321

Entergy Arkansas, Inc.LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



proceeding. Following a period of discovery, the Attorney General filed a supplemental response in October 2018 raising new issues with Entergy Arkansas’s March 2018 rate redetermination and asserting that $45.7 million of the increase should be collected subject to refund pending further investigation. Entergy Arkansas filed to dismiss the Attorney General’s supplemental response, the APSC general staff filed a motion to strike the Attorney General’s filing, and the Attorney General filed a supplemental response disputing Entergy Arkansas and the APSC staff’s filing. Applicable APSC rules and processes authorize its general staff to initiate periodic audits of Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider. In late-2018 the APSC general staff notified Entergy Arkansas it has initiated an audit of the 2017 fuel costs. The time in which the audit will be complete is uncertain at this time.

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.

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

Opportunity Sales Proceeding


In June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources,resources; (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity,capacity; and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.   The LPSC’s complaint challenged sales made beginning in 2002 and requestsrequested refunds.  In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint requesting that the FERC dismiss the complaint on the merits without hearing because the LPSC has failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the System Agreement and failed to produce any evidence of imprudent action by the Entergy System.  In their response, the Utility operating companies explainedarguing among other things that the System Agreement clearly contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.  The FERC subsequently ordered a hearing in the proceeding.


The LPSC filed direct testimony in the proceeding alleging, among other things, (1) that Entergy violated the System Agreement by permitting Entergy Arkansas to make non-requirements sales to non-affiliated third parties rather than making such energy available to the other Utility operating companies’ customers; and (2) that over the period 2000 - 2009, these non-requirements sales caused harm to the Utility operating companies’ customers and these customers should be compensated for this harm by Entergy.  In subsequent testimony, the LPSC modified its original damages claim in favor of quantifying damages by re-running intra-system bills.  The Utility operating companies believe the LPSC’s allegations are without merit.  AAfter a hearing, in the matter was held in August 2010.

In December 2010 the ALJ issued an initial decision.decision in December 2010.  The ALJ found that the System Agreement allowed for Entergy Arkansas to make the sales to third parties but concluded that the sales should be accounted for in the same manner as joint account sales.  The ALJ concluded that “shareholders” should make refunds of the damages to the Utility operating companies, along with interest.  Entergy disagreed with several aspects of the ALJ’s initial decision and in January 2011 filed with the FERC exceptions to the decision.


The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith.  The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated
322

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

with such opportunity sales as part of its load but provides a different allocation authority.  The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  Quantifying the effect of the FERC’s decision requires re-running intra-system bills for a ten-year period, and theThe FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to determine the calculation of the effects.  In July 2012, Entergy and the LPSC filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2012 decision. A hearing was held in May 2013 to quantify the effect of repricing the opportunity sales in accordance with the FERC’s June 2012 decision.
In August The hearing was held in May 2013 and the presiding judgeALJ issued an initial decision in the calculation proceeding. The initial decision concluded that the methodology proposed by the LPSC, rather than the methodologies proposed by Entergy or the FERC Staff, should be used to calculate the payments that Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The initial decision also concluded that the other System Agreement service schedules should not be adjusted and that payments by Entergy Arkansas should not be reflected in the rough production cost equalization bandwidth calculations for the applicable years. The initial decision recognized that the LPSC’s methodology would result in an inequitable windfall to the other Utility operating companies and, therefore, concluded that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%.August 2013. The LPSC, the APSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions. Entergy filed a brief on exceptions requesting that the FERC reverse the initial decision and a brief opposing certain exceptions taken by the LPSC and FERC staff.


313

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denied Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirmed the FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.


In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order denying all of the remaining requests for rehearing of the April 2016 order. In November 2017, Entergy Services filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit of the FERC’s orders in the first two phases of the opportunity sales case. In December 2017 the D.C. Circuit granted Entergy Services’sServices’ request to hold the appeal in abeyance pending final resolution of the related proceeding still pending withbefore the FERC. In January 2018 the APSC and the LPSC filed separate petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit, and the D.C. Circuit consolidated the appeals with Entergy Services’s appeal and held all ofServices’ appeal.

The hearing required by the appeals in abeyance.

Pursuant to the procedural schedule established in the case, Entergy Services re-ran intra-system bills for the ten-year period 2000-2009 to quantify the effects of the FERC's ruling. In NovemberFERC’s April 2016 the LPSC submitted testimony disputing certain aspects of the calculations. A hearingorder was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision concluding that Entergy Arkansas should pay $86 million plus interestaddressing whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and whether to implement the other adjustments to the other Utility operating companies.calculation methodology. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties. The case is pending before the FERC. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing the initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order.


The effect of the FERC’s decisions thus far in the case would be that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. Because further proceedings will still occur in the case, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which includesincluded interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case, including its review of the July 2017 initial decision. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retailcompanies, and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Entergy Arkansas, therefore, recorded a deferred fuel regulatory asset in the first quarter 2016 of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.million. Following its assessment of the course of the proceedings, including the FERC’s denial of rehearing in November 2017

314
323

Entergy Arkansas, Inc.LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



November 2017 described above, in the fourth quarter 2017, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional liability of $35 million and a regulatory asset of $31 million. Because management currently expects

In October 2018 the FERC issued an order addressing the ALJ’s July 2017 initial decision. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision to recovercap the retail portionreduction in Entergy Arkansas’s payment to account for the increased bandwidth payments that Entergy Arkansas made to the other operating companies. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that Grand Gulf sales from January through September 2000 should be included in the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. The FERC affirmed on other grounds the ALJ’s rejection of the costs throughLPSC’s claim that certain joint account sales should be accounted for as part of the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. In November 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2018 decision. In December 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing. In January 2020 the LPSC appealed the December 2019 decision to the D.C. Circuit.

In December 2018, Entergy made a base rate proceeding or newly proposed rider,compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order. 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. Refunds and interest in the following amounts were paid by Entergy Arkansas to the other operating companies in December 2018:
 Total refunds including interest
Payment/(Receipt)
 (In Millions)
PrincipalInterestTotal
Entergy Arkansas$68$67$135
Entergy Louisiana($30)($29)($59)
Entergy Mississippi($18)($18)($36)
Entergy New Orleans($3)($4)($7)
Entergy Texas($17)($16)($33)

Entergy Arkansas previously recognized a regulatory asset is reflected as Other regulatory assetswith a balance of $116 million as of December 31, 2017.2018 for a portion of the payments due as a result of this proceeding.


As described above, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing was completed in September 2020 and oral argument was heard in December 2020.

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 November 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s complaint. The order concluded that the settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015 terminating the System Agreement barred the LPSC’s new complaint. In December 2019 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s November 2019 order, and in July 2020 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request for rehearing. In September 2020 the LPSC appealed to the D.C. Circuit the FERC’s orders dismissing the new opportunity sales complaint. In November 2020 the D.C. Circuit issued an order establishing that briefing will occur in January 2021 through April 2021.

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
324

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

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. In January 2020 the APSC adopted a procedural schedule with a hearing in April 2020. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion seeking to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s application alleging that the APSC, in a prior proceeding, ruled on the issues addressed in the application and determined that Entergy Arkansas’s requested relief violates the filed rate doctrine and the prohibition against retroactive ratemaking. Entergy Arkansas responded to the joint motion in February 2020 rebutting these arguments, including demonstrating that the claims in this proceeding differ substantially from those the APSC addressed previously and that the payment resulting from a FERC tariff violation for which Entergy Arkansas seeks retail cost recovery in this proceeding differs materially from the refunds resulting from a FERC tariff amendment that the APSC previously rejected on filed rate doctrine and the retroactive ratemaking grounds. In addition, in January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony.

In July 2020 the APSC issued a decision finding that Entergy Arkansas’s application is not in the public interest. The order also directed Entergy Arkansas to refund to its retail customers within 30 days of the order the FERC-determined over-collection of $13.7 million, plus interest, associated with a recalculated bandwidth remedy. In addition to these primary findings, the order also denied the Attorney General’s request for Entergy Arkansas to prepare a compliance filing detailing all of the retail impacts from the opportunity sales and denied a request by the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers to recalculate all costs using the revised responsibility ratio. Entergy Arkansas filed a motion for temporary stay of the 30-day requirement to allow Entergy Arkansas a reasonable opportunity to seek rehearing of the APSC order, but in July 2020 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for a stay and directed Entergy Arkansas to refund to its retail customers the component of the total FERC-determined opportunity sales payment that was associated with increased bandwidth remedy payments of $13.7 million, plus interest. The refunds were issued in the August 2020 billing cycle. While the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s stay request, Entergy Arkansas believes its actions were prudent and, therefore, the costs, including the $13.7 million, plus interest, are recoverable. In July 2020, Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the APSC order, which rehearing was denied by the APSC in August 2020. In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of these payments. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint, to which Entergy Arkansas responded. Also in December 2020, Entergy Arkansas and the APSC held a pre-trial conference, and filed a report with the court in January 2021. The court scheduled a hearing for February 26, 2021 regarding issues addressed in the pre-trial conference report.

Net Metering Legislation

An Arkansas law was enacted effective July 2019 that, among other things, expands the definition of a “net metering customer” to include two additional types of customers: (1) customers that lease net metering facilities, subject to certain leasing arrangements, and (2) government entities or other entities exempt from state and federal income taxes that enter into a service contract for a net metering facility. The latter provision would allow eligible entities, many of whom are small and large general service customers, to purchase renewable energy directly from third party providers and receive bill credits for these purchases. The APSC was given authority under this law to address certain matters, such as cost shifting and the appropriate compensation for net metered energy and has initiated proceedings for this purpose. Because of the size and number of customers eligible under this new law, there is a risk of loss of load and the shifting of costs to customers. A hearing was held in December 2019, with utilities, cooperatives, the Arkansas Attorney General, industrial customers, and Entergy Arkansas advocating the need for establishment of a reasonable rate structure that takes into account impacts to non-net metering customers; an additional hearing was conducted in February 2020 for purposes of public comment only. The APSC issued an order in June 2020, and in July 2020 several parties, including Entergy Arkansas, filed for rehearing on multiple
325

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

grounds, including for the reasons that it imposes an unreasonable rate structure and allows facilities to net meter that do not meet the statutory definition of net metering facilities. After granting the rehearing requests, the APSC issued an order in September 2020 largely upholding its June 2020 order. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas and several other parties filed an appeal of the APSC’s September 2020 order.

Separately, as directed by the APSC general staff, the APSC opened a proceeding to compel utilities to amend their net metering tariffs to incorporate the provisions of the legislation that the APSC general staff considered “black letter law.” Entergy Arkansas, the Arkansas Attorney General, and other intervenors opposed this directive pending the development of the rules for implementation that are being considered in the separate net metering rulemaking docket. Nevertheless, reserving its rights, Entergy Arkansas has complied with the directive to amend its tariffs. Asserting procedural and due process violations, in January 2020, Entergy Arkansas and the Arkansas Attorney General separately appealed certain APSC orders in the proceeding.

COVID-19 Orders

In April 2020, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the APSC issued an order requiring utilities, to the extent they had not already done so, to suspend service disconnections during the remaining pendency of the Arkansas Governor’s emergency declaration or until the APSC rescinds the directive. The order also authorizes utilities to establish a regulatory asset to record costs resulting from the suspension of service disconnections, directs that in future proceedings the APSC will consider whether the request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, and requires utilities to track and report the costs and any savings directly attributable to suspension of disconnects. In May 2020 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas expanding deferred payment agreements to assist customers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Quarterly reporting began in August 2020 and the APSC ordered additional reporting in October 2020 regarding utilities’ transitional plans for ending the moratorium on service disconnects. In February 2021 the APSC issued an order finding that it is not in the public interest to immediately lift the moratorium on service disconnects, but to announce a target date of May 3, 2021. In March 2021 the APSC will issue an order either confirming the lifting of the moratorium on service disconnects or extending the moratorium. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of $10.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Federal Regulation


See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation– Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.


Nuclear Matters


Entergy Arkansas owns and, through an affiliate, operates the ANO 1 and ANO 2 nuclear power plants. Entergy Arkansas is, therefore, subject to the risks related to owning and operating nuclear plants. These include risks related to: the use, storage, and handling and disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive materials; the substantial financial requirements, both for capital investments and operational needs, to position Entergy’s nuclear fleet to meet its operational goals,goals; the performance and capacity factors of these nuclear plants including the financial requirements to address emerging issues like stress corrosion cracking of certain materials within the plant systems and the Fukushima event;systems; regulatory requirements and potential future regulatory changes, including changes affecting the regulations governing nuclear plant ownership, operations, license renewal and amendments, and decommissioning; the performance and capacity factors of these nuclear plants; the availability of interim or permanent sites for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, including the fees charged for such disposal; the sufficiency of nuclear decommissioning trust fund assets and earnings to complete decommissioning of each site when required; and limitations on the amounts and types of insurance commercially available for losses in connection with nuclear plant operations and catastrophic events such as a nuclear accident. In the event of an unanticipated early shutdown of either ANO 1 or ANO 2, Entergy Arkansas may be required to
326

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

file with the APSC a rate mechanism to provide additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning. ANO 1’s operating license expires in 2034 and ANO 2’s operating license expires in 2038.


See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the NRC’s decision in March 2015 to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4, of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix, and the resulting significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site.

Environmental Risks


Entergy Arkansas’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.  Management believes that Entergy Arkansas is in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted in “Regulation of Entergy’s Business - Environmental Regulation” in Part I, Item 1.  Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance costs cannot be precisely estimated.


Critical Accounting Estimates


The preparation of Entergy Arkansas’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to apply appropriate accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that can have a significant effect on reported financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.  Management has identified the following accounting policies and estimates as critical because they are based on assumptions and measurements that involve a high degree of uncertainty, and the potential for future changes in the assumptions and measurements that could produce estimates that would have a material effect on the presentation of Entergy Arkansas’s financial position or results of operations.



315

In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Arkansas Inc.recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liabilities for ANO 1 and SubsidiariesANO 2 as a result of a revised decommissioning cost study. The revised estimates resulted in a $126.2 million increase in its decommissioning cost liabilities, along with corresponding increases in the related asset retirement cost assets that will be depreciated over the remaining lives of the units.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Nuclear Decommissioning Costs


See “Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates inherent in accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs.


Utility Regulatory Accounting


See “Utility Regulatory Accounting” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of accounting for the effects of rate regulation.

Unbilled Revenue

See “Unbilled Revenue” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the unbilled revenue amounts.


Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments


See “Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the impairment of long-lived assets and trust fund investments.assets.


Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions


See “Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.


327

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits


Entergy Arkansas’s qualified pension and other postretirement reported costs, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are impacted by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms.   See the “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.  Because of the complexity of these calculations, the long-term nature of these obligations, and the importance of the assumptions utilized, Entergy’s estimate of these costs is a critical accounting estimate.


Costs and Sensitivities


The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension cost and qualified projected benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Qualified Pension CostImpact on 2020 Qualified Projected Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$2,406$46,791
Rate of return on plan assets(0.25%)$2,914$—
Rate of increase in compensation0.25%$1,838$8,922
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Qualified Pension Cost Impact on 2017 Qualified Projected Benefit Obligation
    Increase/(Decrease)  
Discount rate (0.25%) $3,107 $47,040
Rate of return on plan assets (0.25%) $2,914 $-
Rate of increase in compensation 0.25% $1,353 $6,446


316

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Postretirement Benefit CostImpact on 2020 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$174$6,576
Health care cost trend0.25%$225$4,516
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Postretirement Benefit Cost Impact on 2017 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
    Increase/(Decrease)  
Discount rate (0.25%) $506 
$7,552
Health care cost trend 0.25% $782 
$5,513


Each fluctuation above assumes that the other components of the calculation are held constant.


Costs and FundingEmployer Contributions


Total qualified pension cost for Entergy Arkansas in 20172020 was $37 million.$81.7 million, including $21.1 million in settlement costs.  Entergy Arkansas anticipates 20182021 qualified pension cost to be $43 million. In 2016, Entergy Arkansas refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of qualified pension costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified pension costs by $13.3$61.6 million. Entergy Arkansas contributed $79.6$60 million to its qualified pension planplans in 20172020 and estimates pension contributions will be approximately $64.1$66.6 million in 2018,2021, although the 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021.


Total other postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income for Entergy Arkansas in 20172020 was $4$10.1 million.  Entergy Arkansas expects 20182021 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income of approximately $10.2 million.  In 2016, Entergy Arkansas refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of other postretirement costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified other postretirement costs by $2.5$11.1 million.  Entergy Arkansas contributed $695 thousand$2.2 million to its other postretirement plans in 20172020 and estimates 20182021 contributions will be approximately $472$517 thousand.

Federal Healthcare Legislation
328


See “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits -Federal Healthcare Legislation” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy CorporationArkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of Federal Healthcare Legislation.


Other Contingencies


See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.


New Accounting Pronouncements


See “New Accounting Pronouncements” section of Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.

329

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




To the shareholdersmember and Board of Directors of
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.LLC and Subsidiaries


Opinion on the Financial Statements


We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Entergy Arkansas, Inc.LLC and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows and changes in commonmember’s equity (pages 319332 through 324336 and applicable items in pages 5551 through 230)238), for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


Basis for Opinion


These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.


We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.


Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



Critical Audit Matter

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Rate and Regulatory Matters —Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries — Refer to Note 2 to the financial statements

Critical Audit Matter Description

The Company is subject to rate regulation by the Arkansas Public Service Commission (the “APSC”), which has jurisdiction with respect to the rates of electric companies in Arkansas, and to wholesale rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Management has determined it meets the requirements under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America to prepare its financial statements applying the specialized rules to account for the effects of cost-based rate regulation. Accounting for the economics of rate regulation impacts multiple financial statement line items and disclosures, such as property, plant, and equipment;
330

regulatory assets and liabilities; income taxes; operating revenues; operation and maintenance expense; and depreciation and amortization expense.

The Company’s rates are subject to regulatory rate-setting processes and annual earnings oversight. Because the APSC and the FERC set the rates the Company is allowed to charge customers based on allowable costs, including a reasonable return on equity, the Company applies accounting standards that require the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation, including the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities. The Company assesses whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in applicable regulatory and political environments. While the Company has indicated it expects to recover costs from customers through regulated rates, there is a risk that the APSC and the FERC will not approve: (1) full recovery of the costs of providing utility service, or (2) full recovery of amounts invested in the utility business and a reasonable return on that investment.

We identified the impact of rate regulation as a critical audit matter due to the significant judgments made by management to support its assertions about impacted account balances and disclosures and the high degree of subjectivity involved in assessing the impact of future regulatory orders on the financial statements. Management judgments include assessing the likelihood of recovery in future rates of incurred costs, including costs related to the Opportunity Sales Proceeding and refunds to customers. Auditing management’s judgments regarding the outcome of future decisions by the APSC and the FERC, involved especially subjective judgment and specialized knowledge of accounting for rate regulation and the rate setting process.

How the Critical Audit Matter Was Addressed in the Audit

Our audit procedures related to the uncertainty of future decisions by the APSC and the FERC included the following, among others:

We tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the evaluation of the likelihood of (1) the recovery in future rates of costs incurred as property, plant, and equipment and deferred as regulatory assets, and (2) a refund or a future reduction in rates that should be reported as regulatory liabilities. We also tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the initial recognition of amounts as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets or liabilities; and the monitoring and evaluation of regulatory developments that may affect the likelihood of recovering costs in future rates or of a future reduction in rates.
We evaluated the Company’s disclosures related to the impacts of rate regulation, including the balances recorded and regulatory developments.
We read relevant regulatory orders issued by the APSC and the FERC for the Company and other public utilities, regulatory statutes, interpretations, procedural memorandums, filings made by intervenors, and other publicly available information to assess the likelihood of recovery in future rates or of a future reduction in rates based on precedents of the APSC’s and the FERC’s treatment of similar costs under similar circumstances. We evaluated the external information and compared to management’s recorded regulatory asset and liability balances for completeness.
For regulatory matters in process, including the Opportunity Sales Proceeding, we inspected the Company’s filings with the APSC and the FERC, including the annual formula rate plan filing, and considered the filings with the APSC and the FERC by intervenors that may impact the Company’s future rates, for any evidence that might contradict management’s assertions.
We obtained an analysis from management and support from internal and external legal counsel, as appropriate, regarding probability of recovery for regulatory assets or refund or future reduction in rates for regulatory liabilities not yet addressed in a regulatory order, including the Opportunity Sales Proceeding, to assess management’s assertion that amounts are probable of recovery or a future reduction in rates.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 20182021



We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2001.



331
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
       
OPERATING REVENUES      
Electric 
$2,139,919
 
$2,086,608
 
$2,253,564
       
OPERATING EXPENSES  
  
  
Operation and Maintenance:  
  
  
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale 402,777
 325,036
 535,919
Purchased power 230,652
 233,350
 380,081
Nuclear refueling outage expenses 83,968
 56,650
 51,411
Other operation and maintenance 707,825
 706,573
 734,118
Decommissioning 56,860
 53,610
 50,414
Taxes other than income taxes 103,662
 93,109
 99,926
Depreciation and amortization 277,146
 264,215
 246,897
Other regulatory charges (credits) - net (16,074) 7,737
 (24,608)
TOTAL 1,846,816
 1,740,280
 2,074,158
       
OPERATING INCOME 293,103
 346,328
 179,406
       
OTHER INCOME  
  
  
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 18,452
 17,099
 14,227
Interest and investment income 35,882
 19,087
 22,382
Miscellaneous - net (299) (1,446) (3,385)
TOTAL 54,035
 34,740
 33,224
       
INTEREST EXPENSE  
  
  
Interest expense 122,075
 115,311
 105,622
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction (8,585) (9,228) (7,805)
TOTAL 113,490
 106,083
 97,817
       
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES 233,648
 274,985
 114,813
       
Income taxes 93,804
 107,773
 40,541
       
NET INCOME 139,844
 167,212
 74,272
       
Preferred dividend requirements 1,428
 5,270
 6,873
       
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK 
$138,416
 
$161,942
 
$67,399
       
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  



(Page left blank intentionally)
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING REVENUES   
Electric$2,084,494 $2,259,594 $2,060,643 
OPERATING EXPENSES   
Operation and Maintenance:   
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale271,896 458,907 517,245 
Purchased power187,690 204,640 252,390 
Nuclear refueling outage expenses55,737 68,769 77,915 
Other operation and maintenance669,518 720,217 724,831 
Decommissioning73,319 68,030 60,420 
Taxes other than income taxes121,057 115,869 104,771 
Depreciation and amortization338,029 307,351 292,649 
Other regulatory credits - net(35,310)(11,186)(14,807)
TOTAL1,681,936 1,932,597 2,015,414 
OPERATING INCOME402,558 326,997 45,229 
OTHER INCOME   
Allowance for equity funds used during construction15,019 15,499 16,557 
Interest and investment income35,579 26,020 25,406 
Miscellaneous - net(21,908)(18,566)(14,874)
TOTAL28,690 22,953 27,089 
INTEREST EXPENSE   
Interest expense144,834 140,087 124,459 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction(6,595)(6,332)(7,781)
TOTAL138,239 133,755 116,678 
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES293,009 216,195 (44,360)
Income taxes47,777 (46,769)(297,067)
NET INCOME245,232 262,964 252,707 
Preferred dividend requirements1,249 
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON EQUITY$245,232 $262,964 $251,458 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   



332
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS



 
For the Years Ended December 31,
 
2017
2016
2015
 
(In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES      
Net income 
$139,844
 
$167,212
 
$74,272
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:      
Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning, including nuclear fuel amortization 427,394
 414,933
 400,156
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued 67,711
 201,219
 (4,330)
Changes in assets and liabilities:  
  
  
Receivables (23,397) (39,118) 20,813
Fuel inventory 3,402
 29,929
 (11,791)
Accounts payable 16,011
 143,645
 (2,528)
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued 40,127
 37,485
 (54,531)
Interest accrued 1,635
 (3,303) (367)
Deferred fuel costs 33,190
 (105,741) 151,332
Other working capital accounts 15,087
 (46,490) (44,784)
Provisions for estimated losses 16,047
 13,130
 (137)
Other regulatory assets (76,762) (95,464) 60,279
Other regulatory liabilities 1,043,507
 62,994
 (11,123)
Deferred tax rate change recognized as regulatory liability/asset (1,047,837) 
 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities (70,826) (36,805) (110,936)
Other assets and liabilities (29,577) (67,115) 8,565
Net cash flow provided by operating activities 555,556
 676,511
 474,890
INVESTING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Construction expenditures (735,816) (666,289) (624,546)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 19,211
 17,754
 15,882
Nuclear fuel purchases (151,424) (102,050) (132,252)
Proceeds from sale of nuclear fuel 51,029
 39,313
 52,281
Proceeds from nuclear decommissioning trust fund sales 339,434
 197,390
 212,954
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust funds (352,138) (213,093) (223,357)
Payment for purchase of plant 
 (237,323) 
Changes in money pool receivable - net 
 
 2,218
Insurance proceeds 
 10,404
 11,654
Other 392
 5,899
 (108)
Net cash flow used in investing activities (829,312)
(947,995)
(685,274)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt 294,656
 817,563
 
Retirement of long-term debt (175,560) (628,433) (13,234)
Capital contribution from parent 
 200,000
 
Redemption of preferred stock 
 (85,283) 
Change in money pool payable - net 114,905
 (1,510) 52,742
Changes in short-term borrowings - net 49,974
 (11,690) (36,278)
Dividends paid:  
  
  
Common stock (15,000) 
 
Preferred stock (1,428) (6,631) (6,873)
Other (8,084) (1,158) 4,657
Net cash flow provided by financing activities 259,463
 282,858
 1,014
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (14,293) 11,374
 (209,370)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 20,509
 9,135
 218,505
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period 
$6,216
 
$20,509
 
$9,135
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:    
  
Cash paid (received) during the period for:  
  
  
Interest - net of amount capitalized 
$115,162
 
$112,912
 
$100,435
Income taxes 
($8,141) 
($135,709) 
$103,296
See Notes to Financial Statements.
 

 

 



ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES   
Net income$245,232 $262,964 $252,707 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:
Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning, including nuclear fuel amortization490,457 465,299 443,698 
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued87,019 94,368 129,524 
Changes in assets and liabilities:   
Receivables(24,507)(58,077)4,294 
Fuel inventory(10,066)(10,597)6,210 
Accounts payable(22,773)3,059 (126,405)
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued24,942 9,568 
Interest accrued(43)3,895 678 
Deferred fuel costs(1,186)72,560 43,869 
Other working capital accounts(11,061)18,783 (30,118)
Provisions for estimated losses6,289 14,901 14,250 
Other regulatory assets(165,534)(131,873)32,460 
Other regulatory liabilities106,878 39,293 (341,682)
Pension and other postretirement liabilities42,576 5,831 (40,157)
Other assets and liabilities(83,469)(127,582)(187,071)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities659,818 677,766 211,825 
INVESTING ACTIVITIES   
Construction expenditures(775,595)(641,525)(660,044)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction15,019 15,306 17,013 
Nuclear fuel purchases(100,678)(54,344)(99,417)
Proceeds from sale of nuclear fuel30,638 22,782 54,810 
Proceeds from nuclear decommissioning trust fund sales321,360 317,377 300,801 
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust funds(336,392)(336,519)(315,163)
Payment for purchase of assets(5,988)
Changes in money pool receivable - net(3,110)
Litigation proceeds for reimbursement of spent nuclear fuel storage costs55,001 
Insurance proceeds14,790 
Other4,036 630 (1,517)
Net cash flow used in investing activities(795,709)(676,293)(688,727)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES   
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt1,071,121 834,038 958,434 
Retirement of long-term debt(632,175)(548,952)(690,488)
Capital contribution from parent350,000 
Redemption of preferred stock(32,660)
Change in money pool payable - net(21,634)(161,104)16,601 
Changes in short-term borrowings - net(49,974)
Distributions/dividends paid:   
Common equity(95,000)(115,000)(91,751)
Preferred stock(1,606)
Other2,188 (7,055)12,249 
Net cash flow provided by financing activities324,500 1,927 470,805 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents188,609 3,400 (6,097)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period3,519 119 6,216 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$192,128 $3,519 $119 
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:  
Cash paid (received) during the period for:   
Interest - net of amount capitalized$140,735 $131,134 $118,731 
Income taxes($21,971)($33,989)$44,393 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

333
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
   
  December 31,
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
     
CURRENT ASSETS    
Cash and cash equivalents:    
Cash 
$6,184
 
$20,174
Temporary cash investments 32
 335
Total cash and cash equivalents 6,216
 20,509
Securitization recovery trust account 3,748
 4,140
Accounts receivable:  
  
Customer 110,016
 102,229
Allowance for doubtful accounts (1,063) (1,211)
Associated companies 38,765
 35,286
Other 65,209
 58,153
Accrued unbilled revenues 105,120
 100,193
Total accounts receivable 318,047
 294,650
Deferred fuel costs 63,302
 96,690
Fuel inventory - at average cost 29,358
 32,760
Materials and supplies - at average cost 192,853
 182,600
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs 56,485
 81,313
Prepayments and other 12,108
 14,293
TOTAL 682,117
 726,955
     
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
  
Decommissioning trust funds 944,890
 834,735
Other 3,160
 7,912
TOTAL 948,050
 842,647
     
UTILITY PLANT  
  
Electric 11,059,538
 10,488,060
Property under capital lease 
 716
Construction work in progress 280,888
 304,073
Nuclear fuel 277,345
 307,352
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT 11,617,771
 11,100,201
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization 4,762,352
 4,635,885
UTILITY PLANT - NET 6,855,419
 6,464,316
     
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
  
Regulatory assets:  
  
Regulatory asset for income taxes - net 
 62,646
Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $28,583 as of December 31, 2017 and $41,164 as of December 31, 2016) 1,567,437
 1,428,029
Deferred fuel costs 67,096
 66,898
Other 13,910
 14,626
TOTAL 1,648,443
 1,572,199
     
TOTAL ASSETS 
$10,134,029
 
$9,606,117
     
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  



ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT ASSETS  
Cash and cash equivalents:  
Cash$24,108 $3,519 
Temporary cash investments168,020 
Total cash and cash equivalents192,128 3,519 
Securitization recovery trust account4,036 
Accounts receivable:  
Customer183,719 117,679 
Allowance for doubtful accounts(18,334)(1,169)
Associated companies34,216 29,178 
Other35,845 117,653 
Accrued unbilled revenues109,000 108,489 
Total accounts receivable344,446 371,830 
Fuel inventory - at average cost43,811 33,745 
Materials and supplies - at average cost237,640 211,320 
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs32,692 48,875 
Prepayments and other13,296 14,096 
TOTAL864,013 687,421 
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
Decommissioning trust funds1,273,921 1,101,283 
Other341 345 
TOTAL1,274,262 1,101,628 
UTILITY PLANT  
Electric12,905,322 12,293,483 
Construction work in progress234,213 197,775 
Nuclear fuel163,044 195,547 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT13,302,579 12,686,805 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization5,255,355 5,019,826 
UTILITY PLANT - NET8,047,224 7,666,979 
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
Regulatory assets:  
Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $0 as of December 31, 2020 and $1,706 as of December 31, 2019)1,832,384 1,666,850 
Deferred fuel costs68,220 67,690 
Other14,028 15,065 
TOTAL1,914,632 1,749,605 
TOTAL ASSETS$12,100,131 $11,205,633 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

334

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIESENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETSCONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETSCONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITYLIABILITIES AND EQUITYLIABILITIES AND EQUITY
  
 December 31, December 31,
 2017 2016 20202019
 (In Thousands) (In Thousands)
    
CURRENT LIABILITIES    CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Currently maturing long-term debt 
$—
 
$114,700
Currently maturing long-term debt$485,000 $0 
Short-term borrowings 49,974
 
Accounts payable:  
  
Accounts payable:  
Associated companies 365,915
 239,711
Associated companies59,448 111,785 
Other 215,942
 185,153
Other208,591 202,201 
Customer deposits 97,687
 97,512
Customer deposits98,506 101,411 
Taxes accrued 47,321
 7,194
Taxes accrued81,837 81,831 
Interest accrued 18,215
 16,580
Interest accrued22,745 22,788 
Deferred fuel costsDeferred fuel costs53,065 53,721 
Current portion of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxesCurrent portion of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes9,296 
Other 29,922
 36,557
Other40,628 38,760 
TOTAL 824,976
 697,407
TOTAL1,049,820 621,793 
    
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
  
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued 1,190,669
 2,186,623
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued1,286,123 1,183,126 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits 34,104
 35,305
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits30,500 31,701 
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net 985,823
 
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net467,031 478,174 
Other regulatory liabilities 363,591
 305,907
Other regulatory liabilities686,872 559,555 
Decommissioning 981,213
 924,353
Decommissioning1,314,160 1,242,616 
Accumulated provisions 34,729
 18,682
Accumulated provisions70,169 63,880 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities 353,274
 424,234
Pension and other postretirement liabilities361,682 319,075 
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $34,662 as of December 31, 2017 and $48,139 as of December 31, 2016) 2,952,399
 2,715,085
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $0 as of December 31, 2020 and $6,772 as of December 31, 2019)Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $0 as of December 31, 2020 and $6,772 as of December 31, 2019)3,482,507 3,517,208 
Other 5,147
 13,854
Other75,098 62,568 
TOTAL 6,900,949
 6,624,043
TOTAL7,774,142 7,457,903 
    
Commitments and Contingencies 

 

Commitments and Contingencies00
    
Preferred stock without sinking fund 31,350
 31,350
    
COMMON EQUITY  
  
Common stock, $0.01 par value, authorized 325,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding 46,980,196 shares in 2017 and 2016 470
 470
Paid-in capital 790,264
 790,243
Retained earnings 1,586,020
 1,462,604
EQUITYEQUITY  
Member's equityMember's equity3,276,169 3,125,937 
TOTAL 2,376,754
 2,253,317
TOTAL3,276,169 3,125,937 
    
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 
$10,134,029
 
$9,606,117
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY$12,100,131 $11,205,633 
    
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
See Notes to Financial Statements.  



335
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
     
  Common Equity  
  Common Stock Paid-in Capital Retained Earnings Total
  (In Thousands)  
         
Balance at December 31, 2014 
$470
 
$588,471
 
$1,235,296
 
$1,824,237
Net income 
 
 74,272
 74,272
Preferred stock dividends 
 
 (6,873) (6,873)
Other 
 22
 
 22
Balance at December 31, 2015 
$470
 
$588,493
 
$1,302,695
 
$1,891,658
Net income 
 
 167,212
 167,212
Capital contributions from parent 
 200,000
 
 200,000
Capital stock redemption 
 1,750
 (2,033) (283)
Preferred stock dividends 
 
 (5,270) (5,270)
Balance at December 31, 2016 
$470
 
$790,243
 
$1,462,604
 
$2,253,317
Net income 
 
 139,844
 139,844
Common stock dividends 
 
 (15,000) (15,000)
Preferred stock dividends 
 
 (1,428) (1,428)
Other 
 21
 
 21
Balance at December 31, 2017 
$470
 
$790,264
 
$1,586,020
 
$2,376,754
         
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  
  




ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN MEMBER'S EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
Member's Equity
(In Thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2017$2,376,754 
Net income252,707 
Capital contributions from parent350,000 
Common equity distributions(91,751)
Non-cash contribution from parent94,335 
Preferred stock dividends(1,249)
Other2,307 
Balance at December 31, 2018$2,983,103 
Net income262,964 
Common equity distributions(115,000)
Other(5,130)
Balance at December 31, 2019$3,125,937 
Net income245,232 
Common equity distributions(95,000)
Balance at December 31, 2020$3,276,169 
See Notes to Financial Statements.

336
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
           
  2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
  (In Thousands)
           
Operating revenues 
$2,139,919
 
$2,086,608
 
$2,253,564
 
$2,172,391
 
$2,190,159
Net income 
$139,844
 
$167,212
 
$74,272
 
$121,392
 
$161,948
Total assets 
$10,134,029
 
$9,606,117
 
$8,747,774
 
$8,777,655
 
$8,007,707
Long-term obligations (a) 
$2,983,749
 
$2,746,435
 
$2,691,189
 
$2,757,423
 
$2,424,969
           
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt) and preferred stock without sinking fund.
           
  2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
  (Dollars In Millions)
           
Electric Operating Revenues:  
  
  
  
  
Residential 
$768
 
$789
 
$824
 
$755
 
$772
Commercial 495
 495
 515
 461
 469
Industrial 472
 446
 477
 424
 433
Governmental 19
 18
 20
 18
 19
Total retail 1,754
 1,748
 1,836
 1,658
 1,693
Sales for resale:  
  
  
  
  
Associated companies 128
 49
 128
 131
 346
Non-associated companies 121
 118
 195
 282
 83
Other 137
 172
 95
 101
 68
Total 
$2,140
 
$2,087
 
$2,254
 
$2,172
 
$2,190
           
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh):    
  
  
  
Residential 7,298
 7,618
 8,016
 8,070
 7,921
Commercial 5,825
 5,988
 6,020
 5,934
 5,929
Industrial 7,528
 6,795
 6,889
 6,808
 6,769
Governmental 237
 237
 235
 238
 241
Total retail 20,888
 20,638
 21,160
 21,050
 20,860
Sales for resale:  
  
  
  
  
Associated companies 1,782
 1,609
 2,239
 2,299
 7,918
Non-associated companies 6,549
 7,115
 7,980
 8,003
 1,011
Total 29,219
 29,362
 31,379
 31,352
 29,789




ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
 20202019201820172016
 (In Thousands)
Operating revenues$2,084,494 $2,259,594 $2,060,643 $2,139,919 $2,086,608 
Net income$245,232 $262,964 $252,707 $139,844 $167,212 
Total assets$12,100,131 $11,205,633 $10,401,596 $10,134,029 $9,606,117 
Long-term obligations (a)$3,482,507 $3,517,208 $3,225,759 $2,983,749 $2,746,435 
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt) and preferred stock without sinking fund.
 20202019201820172016
 (Dollars In Millions)
Electric Operating Revenues:     
Residential$841 $795 $807 $768 $789 
Commercial466 539 426 495 495 
Industrial462 521 434 472 446 
Governmental18 21 17 19 18 
Total billed retail1,787 1,876 1,684 1,754 1,748 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies105 118 104 128 49 
Non-associated companies68 140 145 121 118 
Other124 126 128 137 172 
Total$2,084 $2,260 $2,061 $2,140 $2,087 
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh):    
Residential7,584 7,996 8,248 7,298 7,618 
Commercial5,356 5,822 5,967 5,825 5,988 
Industrial7,586 7,759 8,071 7,528 6,795 
Governmental223 241 239 237 237 
Total retail20,749 21,818 22,525 20,888 20,638 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies1,659 2,180 1,773 1,782 1,609 
Non-associated companies4,198 7,206 6,447 6,549 7,115 
Total26,606 31,204 30,745 29,219 29,362 

337


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES


MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS


ResultsThe COVID-19 Pandemic

See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Operations

Net Income

2017 Compared to 2016

Net income decreased $305.7 million primarily due to the effect of the enactment of the Tax CutsEntergy Corporation and Jobs Act, in December 2017, which resulted inSubsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a decrease of $182.6 million in net income in 2017, and the effect of a settlement with the IRS related to the 2010-2011 IRS audit, which resulted in a $136.1 million reduction of income tax expense in 2016. Also contributing to the decrease in net income were higher other operation and maintenance expenses. The decrease was partially offset by higher net revenue and higher other income. See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effectsCOVID-19 pandemic.

Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta

In August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of the Tax CutsEntergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and Jobs Acttransmission infrastructure, and the IRS audit.

2016 Compared to 2015

Net income increased $175.4 million primarily due toloss of sales during the effect of a settlement with the IRS related to the 2010-2011 IRS audit, which resulted in a $136.1 million reduction of income tax expense in 2016. Also contributing to the increase were lower other operation and maintenance expenses, higher net revenue, and higher other income. The increase was partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses, higher interest expense, and higher nuclear refueling outage expenses. See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the IRS audit.

Net Revenue

2017 Compared to 2016

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges (credits). Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2017 to 2016.
Amount
(In Millions)
2016 net revenue
$2,438.4
Regulatory credit resulting from reduction of the
  federal corporate income tax rate
55.5
Retail electric price42.8
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation17.2
Volume/weather(12.4)
Other19.0
2017 net revenue
$2,560.5

The regulatory credit resulting from reduction of the federal corporate income tax rate variance is due to the reduction of the Vidalia purchased power agreement regulatory liability by $30.5 million and the reduction of the Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation regulatory liabilities by $25 millionoutages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the enactmentgrid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the Tax Cutsunderlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Jobs Act,Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $2.0 billion, including approximately $1.67 billion in capital costs and approximately $330 million in non-capital costs. This estimate includes all costs to restore power and repair or replace the damages from the hurricanes, except for the cost to repair or replace damage incurred to an Entergy Louisiana transmission line in southeast Louisiana, and the amount of that cost could be significant. The restoration plan for this transmission line and the related cost estimate is still being evaluated. Also, Entergy Louisiana’s revenues were adversely affected in 2020, primarily due to power outages resulting from the hurricanes. Entergy Louisiana is considering all reasonable avenues to recover storm-related costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta, including securitization. Storm cost recovery or financing will be subject to review by applicable regulatory authorities.

Entergy Louisiana recorded accounts payable and corresponding construction work in progress and regulatory assets for the estimated costs incurred that were necessary to return customers to service. Entergy Louisiana recorded the regulatory assets in accordance with its accounting policies and based on the historic treatment of such costs in its service area because management believes that recovery through some form of regulatory mechanism is probable. There are well established mechanisms and precedent for addressing these catastrophic events and providing for recovery of prudently incurred storm costs in accordance with applicable regulatory and legal principles. Because Entergy Louisiana has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

In October 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments to facilitate issuance of shorter-term bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta. Subsequently, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion seeking approval to exclude from the derivation of Entergy Louisiana’s capital structure and cost rate of debt for ratemaking purposes, including the allowance for funds used during construction, shorter-term debt up to $1.1 billion issued by Entergy Louisiana to fund costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta costs on an interim basis. In November 2020 the LPSC issued an order approving the joint motion, and Entergy Louisiana issued $1.1 billion of 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023. Also in November 2020, Entergy Louisiana drew $257 million from its funded storm reserves.

In December 2017,2020, Entergy Louisiana provided the LPSC with notification that it intends to initiate a storm cost recovery proceeding in the near future, which loweredwill permit the federal corporate income tax rate from 35%LPSC to 21%. The effectsretain any outside consultants and counsel needed to review the storm cost recovery application. In February 2021 the LPSC voted to retain outside counsel and consultants to assist in the review of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed furtherEntergy Louisiana’s upcoming storm cost recovery application, which is expected to be filed in Note 3 to the financial statements.


March 2021.
326
338

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



February 2021 Winter Storms

See the “February 2021 Winter Storms” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the February 2021 winter storms. Entergy Louisiana’s preliminary estimate for the cost of mobilizing crews and restoring power is approximately $50 million to $60 million. Natural gas purchases for Entergy Louisiana for February 1st through 25th, 2021 are approximately $190 million compared to natural gas purchases for February 2020 of $39 million.

Results of Operations

2020 Compared to 2019

Net Income

Net income increased $390.8 million primarily due to the $382.8 million reduction in deferred income tax expense related to the basis of assets contributed in the 2015 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana business combination as a result of the resolution of the 2014-2015 IRS audit in the fourth quarter 2020 and the $58 million reduction in income tax expense resulting from an IRS settlement in the first quarter 2020 related to the uncertain tax position regarding the Hurricane Isaac Louisiana Act 55 financing, which also resulted in a $29 million ($21 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge to reflect Entergy Louisiana’s agreement to share the savings with customers. Also contributing to the increase were higher retail electric price, lower other operation and maintenance expenses, and a lower effective income tax rate. The increase was partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses, lower volume/weather, lower other income, higher interest expense, and higher taxes other than income taxes. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the tax audit resolution and the tax settlement.

Operating Revenues

Following is an analysis of the change in operating revenues comparing 2020 to 2019:
Amount
(In Millions)
2019 operating revenues$4,285.2 
Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income(330.3)
Volume/weather(68.8)
Return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers7.5 
Retail electric price176.3 
2020 operating revenues$4,069.9

Entergy Louisiana’s results include revenues from rate mechanisms designed to recover fuel, purchased power, and other costs such that the revenues and expenses associated with these items generally offset and do not affect net income. “Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income” includes the revenue variance associated with these items.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to decreased commercial and industrial usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the effects of Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta on sales, and the effect of less favorable weather on residential sales, partially offset by increased residential usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decrease in industrial usage is partially offset by an increase in demand from expansion projects, primarily in the transportation and chemicals industries. See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the
339

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

COVID-19 pandemic. See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for discussion of the storms.

The return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers resulted from the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes through changes in the formula rate plan effective May 2018. In 2020, $31.1 million was returned to customers as compared to $38.6 million in 2019. There was no effect on net income as the reduction in operating revenues was offset by a reduction in income tax expense. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to an increase in formula rate plan revenues implemented witheffective June 2019 due to the first billing cycleinclusion of March 2016, to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement relatedfor the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and effective April 2020 due to the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4inclusion of the Unionfirst-year revenue requirement for the Lake Charles Power Station and increases in March 2016formula rate plan revenues effective September 2019 and a provision recorded in 2016 related to the settlement of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding.September 2020. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the formula rate plan revenues and the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding.proceedings.

The Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation variance results from a regulatory charge recorded in 2016 for tax savings to be shared with customers per an agreement approved by the LPSC. The tax savings resulted from the 2010-2011 IRS audit settlement on the treatment of the Louisiana Act 55 financing of storm costs for Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the settlement and benefit sharing.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales and decreased usage during the unbilled sales period. The decrease was partially offset by an increase of 1,237 GWh, or 4%, in industrial usage primarily due to an increase in demand from existing customers and expansion projects in the chemicals industry.

2016 Compared to 2015

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.
Amount
(In Millions)
2015 net revenue
$2,408.8
Retail electric price62.5
Volume/weather(6.7)
Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation(17.2)
Other(9.0)
2016 net revenue
$2,438.4

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to an increase in formula rate plan revenues, implemented with the first billing cycle of March 2016, to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement related to the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to the effect of less favorable weather on residential sales, partially offset by an increase in industrial usage and an increase in volume during the unbilled period. The increase in industrial usage is primarily due to increased demand from new customers and expansion projects, primarily in the chemicals industry.

The Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation variance results from a regulatory charge for tax savings to be shared with customers per an agreement approved by the LPSC. The tax savings resulted from the 2010-2011 IRS audit settlement on the treatment of the Louisiana Act 55 financing of storm costs for Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the settlement and benefit sharing.

Included in Other is a provision of $23 million recorded in 2016 related to the settlement of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding, offset by a provision of $32 million recorded in 2015 related to the uncertainty at that time associated with the resolution of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence

327

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


review proceeding.  See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding.


Other Income Statement Variances

2017 Compared to 2016


Other operation and maintenance expenses increaseddecreased primarily due to:


an increasea decrease of $17.8$10.2 million in nuclear generation expenses primarily due to a lower scope of work performed in 2020 as compared to 2019, in part as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;
a decrease of $9.5 million primarily due to contract costs in 2019 related to initiatives to explore new customer products and services;
a decrease of $6.8 million in loss provisions;
higher nuclear laborinsurance refunds of $5.9 million;
a decrease of $5.8 million in energy efficiency costs including contract labor,due to position the nuclear fleettiming of recovery from customers; and
a decrease of $4.3 million in non-nuclear generation expenses primarily due to meet its operational goals, partially offset by a lower scope of work performed during plant outages in 2017;
an increase of $9.5 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to higher incentive-based compensation accruals in 20172020 as compared to the prior year;
same period in 2019, partially offset by increases resulting from the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and the Lake Charles Power Station being placed in service.

The decrease was partially offset by:

an increase of $4.1 million as a result of the amount of transmission costs allocated by MISO. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further information on the recovery of these costs;
an increase of $3.6 million in transmission and distribution expenses due to higher vegetation maintenance costs; and
an increase of $3.2 million in write-offs of customer accounts.

Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to increases in ad valorem taxes, state franchise taxes, and payroll taxes. Ad valorem taxes increased primarily due to higher assessments, including the assessment of Arkansas ad valorem taxes on the Union Power Station beginning in 2017. State franchise taxes increased primarily due to a change in the Louisiana franchise tax law which became effective for 2017.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station purchased in March 2016, and the effects of recording in third quarter 2016 final court decisions in the River Bend and Waterford 3 lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. The damages awarded include the reimbursement of approximately $6 million of spent nuclear fuel storage costs previously recorded as depreciation expense. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Other income increased primarily due to an increase in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2017, which includes the St. Charles Power Station project, and higher realized gains in 2017 on the River Bend decommissioning trust fund investments, including portfolio rebalancing to the 30% interest in River Bend formerly owned by Cajun.

Interest expense decreased primarily due to an increase in the allowance for borrowed funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2017, which includes the St. Charles Power Station project.

2016 Compared to 2015

Nuclear refueling outage expenses increased primarily due to the amortization of higher expenses associated with the refueling outages at Waterford 3.
Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

the $45 million write-off recorded in 2015 to recognize the portion of the assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project no longer probable of recovery. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the prudence review proceeding; and

328

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


a decrease of $35 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to a decreasean increase in net periodic pension and other postretirement benefits costs as a result of highera decrease in the discount ratesrate used to value the benefit liabilities and a refinement in the approach used to estimate the service cost and interest cost components of pension and other postretirement costs.liabilities. See “Critical Accounting Estimates - Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for further discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit costs.
costs; and

several individually insignificant items.
The decrease was partially offset by an increase of $19.9 million in nuclear generation expenses
Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to increases in ad valorem taxes resulting from higher nuclear labor costs, including contract labor.property assessments.


Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including the J. Wayne Leonard Power BlocksStation (formerly St. Charles Power Station), which was placed into service in May 2019 and the Lake Charles Power Station, which was placed in service in March 2020.

Other regulatory charges (credits) include regulatory charges of $32.6 million recorded in the fourth quarter 2020 due to a settlement with the IRS related to the uncertain tax position regarding Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita Louisiana Act 55 financing because the savings will be shared with customers and $29 million recorded in the first quarter 2020 due to a settlement with the IRS related to the uncertain tax position regarding Hurricane Isaac Louisiana Act 55 financing because the savings will be shared with customers. See Note 3 and 4to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchased in March 2016.settlements and savings obligations.

340

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Other income increaseddecreased primarily due to an increaseto:

a decrease in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2016, which included2019, including the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and the Lake Charles Power Station project,projects; and increased distribution and transmission spending. The increase was also due to higher income
changes in 2016 on the River Bend and Waterford 3 decommissioning trust fund investments.activity.


Interest expense increased primarily due to:


the issuances of $300 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds and $350 million of 2.90% Series mortgage bonds, each in March 2020;
the issuance of $525 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds in March 2016 of $425 million of 3.25% Series collateral trust mortgage bonds;2019; and
a decrease in the issuanceallowance for borrowed funds used during construction due to higher construction work in March 2016 of $200 million of 4.95% Series first mortgage bonds;progress in 2019, including the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and Lake Charles Power Station projects.
the issuance in October 2016 of $400 million of 2.40% Series collateral trust mortgage bonds.

The increase was partially offset by the refinancing at lower interest rates of certain first mortgage bonds. See Note 5 to the financial statements for details of long-term debt.

Income Taxes


The effective income tax rates were (54.6%) for 2017, 2016,2020 and 2015 were 60.5%, 12.6%, and 28.6%, respectively.15% for 2019. The difference in the effective income tax rate of 60.5% for 2017 versus the federal statutory rate of 35%21% for 20172020 was primarily due to the enactmentcompletion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed by President Trump in December 2017, which changed2014-2015 IRS audit effectively settling the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective in 2018. See Note 3 to the financial statementspositions for further discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.those years. The difference in the effective income tax rate of 12.6% for 2016 versus the federal statutory rate of 35%21% for 20162019 was primarily due to the reversalamortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. See Notes 2 and 3 to the financial statements for a portiondiscussion of the provision for uncertain tax positions as a result ofeffects and regulatory activity regarding the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit in the second quarter 2016Tax Cuts and book and tax differences related to the non-taxable income distributions earned on preferred membership interests, partially offset by state income taxes.Jobs Act. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory raterates of 35%21% to the effective income tax rates.


Income Tax Legislation2019 Compared to 2018


See the Income Tax LegislationMANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Results of Operationssectionin Item 7 of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and AnalysisLouisiana’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal income tax legislation enacted in December 2017. Note 3 to the financial statements contains additional discussion of the effect of the Act on 2017 results of operations for 2019 compared to 2018.

Liquidity and financial position, the provisions of the Act, and the uncertainties associated with accountingCapital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the Act,years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and Note 2 to the financial statements discusses proceedings commenced or other responses by Entergy’s regulators to the Act.2018 were as follows:

 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period$2,006 $43,364 $35,907 
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities1,072,986 1,236,002 1,395,204 
Investing activities(1,944,671)(1,653,634)(1,878,208)
Financing activities1,597,699 376,274 490,461 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents726,014 (41,358)7,457 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$728,020 $2,006 $43,364 


329
341

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



2020 Compared to 2019
Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 were as follows:
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
$213,850
 
$35,102
 
$320,516
      
Net cash provided by (used in):   
  
Operating activities1,337,545
 1,037,912
 1,155,516
Investing activities(1,787,409) (1,474,065) (994,208)
Financing activities271,921
 614,901
 (446,722)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents(177,943) 178,748
 (285,414)
      
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
$35,907
 
$213,850
 
$35,102


Operating Activities


Net cash flow provided by operating activities increased $299.6decreased $163 million in 20172020 primarily due to:

income tax refundsan increase of $234.2$186.1 million in 2017 comparedstorm spending in 2020, primarily due to income tax paymentsHurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration efforts. See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for discussion of $156.6 millionstorm restoration efforts;
lower collections of receivables from customers, in 2016. Entergy Louisiana received income tax refunds in 2017 and made income tax payments in 2016 in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement. The income tax refunds in 2017 resulted from the utilization of Entergy Louisiana’s net operating losses. The income tax payments in 2016 resulted primarily from adjustments associated with the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit, payments for state taxes resulting from the effect of the final settlement of the 2006-2007 IRS audit, and the effect of net operating loss limitations. See Note 3part due to the financial statements for a discussion of the audits;COVID-19 pandemic;
an increase due to the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs; and
an increase of $21.5 million in interest payment of $60 million made in March 2016 related to the purchase of a beneficial interest in the Waterford 3 leased assets.paid.


The increasedecrease was partially offset by:


a refund to customersdecrease in January 2017 of approximately $71 million as a result of the settlement approved by the LPSC related to the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the settlement and refund;
an increase of $62.8$43.7 million in spending on nuclear refueling outages;
the timing of payments to vendors; and
proceedsincome tax refunds of $37.8 million received in August 2016 from the DOE resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously expensed. See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $117.6$14.7 million in 2016 primarily due to:

an increase of $67.52020 compared to $15.3 million in income tax payments in 2016.2019. Entergy Louisiana had income tax paymentsrefunds in 20162020 and 2015 in accordance with intercompany income tax allocation agreements. The income tax payments in 2016 resulted primarily from adjustments associated2019 in accordance with the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit, payments for state taxes resulting from the effect of the final settlement of the 2006-2007 IRS audit, and the effect of net operating loss limitations. The 2015an intercompany tax allocation agreement. Entergy Louisiana had income tax payments resulted primarily from adjustments

330

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


associated with the settlementa refund of the 2008-2009 IRS audit. See Note 3 to the financial statements foran overpayment on a discussion of theprior year state income tax audits;return.
an increase of $80.7 million in interest paid resulting from an increase in interest expense, including a payment of $60 million made in March 2016 related to the purchase of a beneficial interest in the Waterford 3 leased assets. See Note 10 to the financial statements for a discussion of the purchase of a beneficial interest in the Waterford 3 leased assets;
the timing of collections from customers and payments to vendors; and
a decrease due to the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs in 2016.

The decrease was partially offset by proceeds of $37.8 million received in 2016 from the DOE resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously expensed and a decrease of $30.5 million in spending on nuclear refueling outages in 2016. See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Investing Activities


Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $313.3$291 million in 20172020 primarily due to:


an increase of $364.3$709.7 million in fossil-fueled generationstorm spending 2020, primarily due to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration efforts, See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for discussion of storm restoration efforts;
the purchase of Washington Parish Energy Center in November 2020 for approximately $222 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Washington Parish Energy Center purchase;
an increase of $16.7 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to investment in the reliability and infrastructure of Entergy Louisiana’s distribution system, including increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure; and
money pool activity.

The increase was partially offset by:

an increase of $302.2 million in net receipts from storm reserve escrow accounts;
a decrease of $207.8 million in non-nuclear generation construction expenditures due to higher spending in 2019 on the St.Lake Charles Power Station and LakeJ. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station projects in 2017;Station) projects;
an increasea decrease of $148.9$133.1 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a higherlower scope of work performed on various projects in 2017;2020 as compared to 2019;
an increasea decrease of $144.9$89.5 million in nuclear construction expenditures primarily due to a lower scope of work performed on various nuclear projects in 2020 as compared to 2019; and
a decrease of $26.1 million as a result of fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements in the Utility business, material, and service deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle;cycle.
proceeds of $57.9 million received in 2016 from the DOE resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously capitalized. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation;
an increase of $53.6 million in nuclear construction expenditures primarily due to increased spending on various nuclear projects in 2017;
an increase of $30.4 million in distribution construction expenditures due to increased spending on digital technology improvements within the customer contact centers;
an increase of $19.9 million due to increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure; and
an increase of $12.3 million due to various information technology projects and upgrades in 2017.

The increase was partially offset by:

the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $475 million in March 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase;
money pool activity; and
an increase in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2017.

DecreasesIncreases in Entergy Louisiana’s receivable from the money pool are a sourceuse of cash flow, and Entergy Louisiana’s receivable from the money pool decreasedincreased by $11.3$13.4 million in 20172020 compared to increasingdecreasing by $16.3 $46.8
342

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

million in 2016.2019. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.


331

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $479.9 million in 2016 primarily due to:

the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $475 million in March 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase;
an increase of $130.7 million in fossil-fueled generation construction expenditures primarily due to spending on the St. Charles Power Station project in 2016;
cash proceeds of $59.6 million received in 2015 from the transfer of Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans in September 2015. See “State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery- Retail Rates - Electric - Filings with the City Council” below for further discussion of the transfer;
an increase of $52 million in transmission construction expenditures due to a higher scope of work performed in 2016; and
an increase of $20.5 million due to various information technology projects and upgrades in 2016.

The increase was partially offset by:

fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements in the Utility business, material and service deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle;
proceeds of $57.9 million received in 2016 from the DOE resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously capitalized. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation; and
a decrease of $16.9 million in nuclear construction expenditures primarily due to decreased spending on compliance with NRC post-Fukushima requirements.


Financing Activities


Net cash flow provided by financing activities decreased $343increased $1,221.4 million in 20172020 primarily due to:

the issuance of $1.1 billion of 0.62% Series mortgage bonds in November 2020;
the issuance of $350 million of 2.90% Series mortgage bonds and $300 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds, each in March 2020;
the issuance of $300 million of 2.90% Series mortgage bonds and $300 million of 1.60% Series mortgage bonds, each in November 2020; and
a decrease of $186.5 million in common equity distributions in 2020 primarily due to the net issuance of $325.6 million of long-term debt in 2017 compared to the net issuance of $961.2 million in 2016. upcoming capital expenditures.

The decreaseincrease was partially offset by:


a decreasethe issuance of $194.3$525 million of common equity distributions primarily as a result4.20% Series mortgage bonds in March 2019;
the repayment in August 2020 of higher construction expenditures$250 million of 3.95% Series mortgage bonds due October 2020;
the repayment in December 2020 of $200 million of 5.25% Series mortgage bonds due July 2052;
money pool activity;
the repayment in December 2020 of $100 million of 4.70% Series mortgage bonds due June 2063; and higher nuclear fuel purchases in 2017; and
net repayments of long-term borrowings of $39.7$62 million in 2020 on the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities’ credit facilitiesfacilities.

Decreases in 2017Entergy Louisiana’s payable to the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Louisiana’s payable to the money pool decreased by $82.8 million in 2020 compared to net repayments of $56.6increasing by $82.8 million in 2016.2019.

Entergy Louisiana’s financing activities provided $614.9 million of cash in 2016 compared to using $446.7 million in 2015 primarily due to the following activity:

the net issuance of $961.2 million of long-term debt in 2016 compared to the net retirement of $103.4 million of long-term debt in 2015;
the redemption in September 2015 of $100 million of 6.95% Series and $10 million of 8.25% Series preferred membership interests in connection with the Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana business combination;
net repayments of borrowings of $56.6 million on the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity’s credit facility in 2016 compared to net borrowings of $14.3 million in 2015; and
an increase of $59.5 million in common equity distributions in 2016. Equity distributions were lower in 2015 in anticipation of the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station.

See Note 5 to the financial statements for details of long-term debt.



2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Cash Flow” in Item 7 of Entergy Louisiana’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2019 compared to 2018.

Capital Structure

Entergy Louisiana’s debt to capital ratio is shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital ratio for Entergy Louisiana is primarily due to the net issuances of long-term debt in 2020.
 December 31,
2020
December 31,
2019
Debt to capital54.8 %53.4 %
Effect of excluding securitization bonds0.0 %(0.1 %)
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)54.8 %53.3 %
Effect of subtracting cash(2.1 %)(0.1 %)
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)52.7 %53.2 %

332
343

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



(a)Calculation excludes the securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy Louisiana.
Capital Structure

Entergy Louisiana’s capitalization is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table.
 December 31,
2017
 December 31,
2016
Debt to capital53.8% 53.4%
Effect of excluding securitization bonds(0.3%) (0.5%)
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)53.5% 52.9%
Effect of subtracting cash(0.1%) (0.9%)
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)53.4% 52.0%

(a)Calculation excludes the securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy Louisiana.


Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents.  Debt consists of short-term borrowings, finance lease obligations, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion.  Capital consists of debt and common equity.  Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents.  Entergy Louisiana uses the debt to capital ratios excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes they provide useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Louisiana’s financial condition because the securitization bonds are non-recourse to Entergy Louisiana, as more fully described in Note 5 to the financial statements. Entergy Louisiana also uses the net debt to net capital ratio excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Louisiana’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy Louisiana’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.


Entergy Louisiana seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings.  To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a dividend,distribution, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the targeted capital structure.  To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Louisiana may issue incremental debt or reduce dividends,distributions, or both, to maintain its targeted capital structure.  In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as financing of large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing dividends,distributions, Entergy Louisiana may receive equity contributions to maintain the targetedits capital structure.


Uses of Capital


Entergy Louisiana requires capital resources for:


construction and other capital investments;
debt maturities or retirements;
working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel and purchased power costs; and
distribution and interest payments.


333

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Following are the amounts of Entergy Louisiana’s planned construction and other capital investments.
 202120222023
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:  
Generation$365 $460 $785 
Transmission425 340 230 
Distribution540 485 500 
Utility Support160 130 115 
Total$1,490 $1,415 $1,630 

In addition to the planned spending in the table above, Entergy Louisiana also expects to pay for $845 million of capital investments in 2021 related to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration work that have been accrued as of December 31, 2020.
344

 2018 2019 2020
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:     
Generation
$875
 
$530
 
$330
Transmission465
 350
 285
Distribution325
 395
 365
Utility Support165
 110
 135
Total
$1,830
 
$1,385
 
$1,115

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Following are the amounts of Entergy Louisiana’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 20212022-20232024-2025After 2025Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)$557 $2,294 $1,495 $9,506 $13,852 
Operating leases (b)$13 $19 $10 $4 $46 
Finance leases (b)$4 $7 $4 $2 $17 
Purchase obligations (c)$687 $1,463 $1,472 $4,838 $8,460 
 2018 2019-2020 2021-2022 After 2022 Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)
$940
 
$903
 
$843
 
$6,785
 
$9,471
Operating leases
$22
 
$41
 
$24
 
$19
 
$106
Purchase obligations (b)
$633
 
$1,420
 
$1,366
 
$7,125
 
$10,544


(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Louisiana, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Vidalia purchased power agreement and the Unit Power Sales Agreement, both of which are discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements.

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.
(c)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Louisiana, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Vidalia purchased power agreement and the Unit Power Sales Agreement, both of which are discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements.

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, Entergy Louisiana currently expects to contribute approximately $71.9$59.9 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $19$15.6 million to its other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2018,2021, although the 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021. See “Critical Accounting Estimates- Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.

Also, in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy Louisiana has $926.6 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.


In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Louisiana includes specific investments such as the St. Charles Power Station and Lake Charles Power Station, each discussed below; transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to enhancemaintain reliability and improve service to customers, including investment to support advanced metering;meters and related investments; resource planning, including potential generation and renewables projects; system improvements; investments in River Bend and Waterford 3; software and security; and other investments. Entergy’s Utility supply plan initiative will continue to seek to transform its generation portfolio with new or repowered generation resources. Opportunities resulting from the supply plan initiative, including new projects or the exploration of alternative financing sources, could result in increases or decreases in the capital expenditure estimates given above. The estimatedEstimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements,

334

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital.


As a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, Entergy Louisiana pays distributions from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.

St. Charles Power Station

In August 2015, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC an application seeking certification that the public necessity and convenience would be served by the construction of the St. Charles Power Station, a nominal 980 megawatt combined-cycle generating unit, on land adjacent to the existing Little Gypsy plant in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. It is currently estimated to cost $869 million to construct, including transmission interconnection and other related costs. The LPSC issued an order approving certification of St. Charles Power Station in December 2016. Construction is in progress and commercial operation is estimated to occur by mid-2019.

Lake Charles Power Station

In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC seeking certification that the public convenience and necessity would be served by the construction of the Lake Charles Power Station, a nominal 994 megawatt combined-cycle generating unit in Westlake, Louisiana, on land adjacent to the existing Nelson plant in Calcasieu Parish. The current estimated cost of the Lake Charles Power Station is $872 million, including estimated costs of transmission interconnection and other related costs. In May 2017 the parties to the proceeding agreed to an uncontested stipulation finding that construction of the Lake Charles Power Station is in the public interest and authorizing an in-service rate recovery plan. In July 2017 the LPSC issued an order unanimously approving the stipulation and approved certification of the unit. Construction is in progress and commercial operation is expected to occur by mid-2020.

Washington Parish Energy Center

In April 2017, Entergy Louisiana signed a purchase and sale agreement with a subsidiary of Calpine Corporation for the acquisition of a peaking plant. Calpine will construct the plant, which will consist of two natural gas-fired combustion turbine units with a total nominal capacity of approximately 361 MW. The plant, named the Washington Parish Energy Center, will be located in Bogalusa, Louisiana and, subject to permits and approvals, is expected to be completed in 2021. Subject to regulatory approvals, Entergy Louisiana will purchase the plant once it is complete for an estimated total investment of approximately $261 million, including transmission and other related costs. In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC seeking certification of the plant. A procedural schedule has been established, with the deadlines recently extended and the hearing continued from March 2018 until June 2018 in order to allow the parties an opportunity to reach settlement.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application seeking a finding from the LPSC that Entergy Louisiana’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. Entergy Louisiana proposed to deploy advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Louisiana’s modernized power grid. The filing included an estimate of implementation costs for AMI of $330 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, and Entergy Louisiana provided a cost/benefit analysis showing that its combined electric and gas AMI deployment is expected to produce a nominal net benefit to customers of $607 million. Entergy Louisiana also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $92 million at December 31, 2015, of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Louisiana proposed a 15-year useful life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. The communications network deployment

335

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


is expected to begin by late-2018, after the necessary information technology infrastructure is in place. Entergy Louisiana proposed to recover the cost of AMI through the implementation of a customer charge, net of certain benefits, phased in over the period 2019 through 2022. The parties reached an uncontested stipulation permitting implementation of Entergy Louisiana’s proposed AMI system, with modifications to the proposed customer charge. In July 2017 the LPSC approved the stipulation. Entergy Louisiana expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset at current depreciation rates.


Sources of Capital


Entergy Louisiana’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:


internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
storm reserve escrow accounts;
debt or preferred membership interest issuances;issuances, including debt issuances to refund or retire currently outstanding or maturing indebtedness;
capital contributions; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.


Entergy Louisiana may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest rates are favorable.
345

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

All debt and common and preferred membership interest issuances by Entergy Louisiana require prior regulatory approval. Preferred membership interest and debtDebt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its bond indentures and other agreements. Entergy Louisiana has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.


Entergy Louisiana’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
2020201920182017
(In Thousands)
$13,426($82,826)$46,843$11,173
2017 2016 2015 2014
(In Thousands)
$11,173 $22,503 $6,154 $2,815


See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.


Entergy Louisiana has a credit facility in the amount of $350 million scheduled to expire in August 2022.September 2024. The credit facility allows Entergy Louisiana to issueincludes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against $15 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, 2017,2020, there were no cash borrowings and a $9.1 million letterno letters of credit outstanding under the credit facility. In addition, Entergy Louisiana is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO.  As of December 31, 2017, a $29.72020, $2.2 million letterin letters of credit waswere outstanding under Entergy Louisiana’s uncommitted letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the credit facilities.


The Entergy Louisiana nuclear fuel company variable interest entities have two separate credit facilities, oneeach in the amount of $105 million and one in the amount of $85 million, both scheduled to expire in May 2019.September 2022. As of December 31, 2017, $65.72020, $18.9 million of loans were outstanding under the credit facility for the Entergy Louisiana River Bend nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. As of December 31, 2017, $43.5 million in letters of credit to support a like amount of commercial paper issued and $36.42020, $39.3 million in loans were outstanding under the Entergy Louisiana Waterford nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facilities.


336

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Entergy Louisiana obtained authorizations from the FERC through October 2019July 2022 for the following:


short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $450 million at any time outstanding;
long-term borrowings and security issuances; and
long-term borrowings by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entities.

See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s short-term borrowing limits.


Hurricane Isaac


In June 2014 the LPSC voted to approve a series of orders which (i) quantified $290.8 million of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs as prudently incurred; (ii) determined $290 million as the level of storm reserves to be re-established; (iii) authorized Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) granted other requested relief associated with storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs. Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation and the Louisiana State Bond Commission. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the August 2014 issuance of bonds under Act 55 of the Louisiana Legislature.


Little Gypsy Repowering ProjectRetail Rates - Gas


In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the
245

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of the upper end of the earnings band as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2007, 2015.

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s filings to recover storm-related costs.

Other

In March 2016 the LPSC opened two dockets to examine, on a generic basis, issues that it identified in connection with its review of Cleco Corporation’s acquisition by third party investors.  The first docket is captioned “In re: Investigation of double leveraging issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities,” and the second is captioned “In re: Investigation of tax structure issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities.”  In April 2016 the LPSC clarified that the concerns giving rise to the two dockets arose as a result of its review of the structure of the Cleco-Macquarie transaction and that the specific intent of the directives is to seek more information regarding intra-corporate debt financing of a utility’s capital structure as well as the use of investment tax credits to mitigate the tax obligation at the parent level of a consolidated entity.  No schedule has been set for either docket, and limited discovery has occurred.

In December 2019 an LPSC commissioner issued an unopposed directive to staff to research customer-centered options for all customer classes, as well as other regulatory environments, and recommend a plan for how to ensure customers are the focus. There was no opposition to the directive from other commissioners but several remarked that the intent of the directive was not initiated to pursue retail open access. In furtherance of the directive, the LPSC issued a notice of the opening of a docket to conduct a rulemaking to research and evaluate customer-centered options for all electric customer classes as well as other regulatory environments in January 2020.

Entergy Mississippi

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include energy cost recovery riders to recover fuel and purchased power costs.  The energy cost rate for each calendar year is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery of the energy costs as of the 12-month period ended September 30.  Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to annual audits conducted pursuant to the authority of the MPSC.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Mississippi received approval from the MPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments.  Entergy Mississippi hedges approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year.  The hedge quantity is reviewed on an annual basis.

246

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings regarding recovery of Entergy Mississippi’s storm-related costs.

Formula Rate Plan

In August 2012 the MPSC opened inquiries to review whether the current formulaic methodology used to calculate the return on common equity in both Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan and Mississippi Power Company’s annual formula rate plan was still appropriate or could be improved to better serve the public interest. The intent of this inquiry and review was for informational purposes only; the evaluation of any recommendations for changes to the existing methodology would take place in a general rate case or in the existing formula rate plan proceeding. In March 2013 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed its consultant’s report which noted the return on common equity estimation methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company are commonly used throughout the electric utility industry. The report suggested ways in which the methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company might be improved, but did not recommend specific changes in the return on common equity formulas or calculations at that time. In June 2014 the MPSC expanded the scope of the August 2012 inquiry to study the merits of adopting a uniform formula rate plan that could be applied, where possible in whole or in part, to both Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company in order to achieve greater consistency in the plans. The MPSC directed the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff to investigate and review Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan rider schedule and Mississippi Power Company’s Performance Evaluation Plan by considering the merits and deficiencies and possibilities for improvement of each and then to propose a uniform formula rate plan that, where possible, could be applicable to both companies. No procedural schedule has been set. In October 2014 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff conducted a public technical conference to discuss performance benchmarking and its potential application to the electric utilities’ formula rate plans. The docket remains open.

Entergy New Orleans

Fuel Recovery

Entergy New Orleans’s electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment tariff designed to reflect no more than targeted fuel and purchased power costs, adjusted by a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel and purchased power costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges.

To help stabilize gas costs, Entergy New Orleans seeks approval annually from the City Council to continue implementation of its natural gas hedging program consistent with the City Council’s stated policy objectives.  The program uses financial instruments to hedge exposure to volatility in the wholesale price of natural gas purchased to serve Entergy New Orleans gas customers.  Entergy New Orleans hedges up to 25% of actual gas sales made during the winter months.

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s efforts to recover storm-related costs.

247

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Energy Efficiency Programs

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  The rate settlement provided an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provided a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In January 2015 the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart program from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted and when new rates from the 2018 combined rate case, which includes a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect. In December 2017 the City Council approved an energy efficiency cost recovery rider as an interim funding mechanism for Energy Smart, subject to verification that no additional funding sources exist. In June 2018 the City Council also approved a resolution recommending that Entergy New Orleans allocate approximately $13.5 million of benefits resulting from the Tax Act to Energy Smart. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2020 through December 2022.

Entergy Texas

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including interest, that are not included in base rates.  Semi-annual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in fuel mix.  The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT.  The PUCT fuel cost proceedings are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements.

At the PUCT’s April 2013 open meeting, the PUCT Commissioners discussed their view that a purchased power capacity rider was good public policy. The PUCT issued an order in May 2013 adopting the rule allowing for a purchased power capacity rider, subject to an offsetting adjustment for load growth. The rule, as adopted, also includes a process for obtaining pre-approval by the PUCT of purchased power agreements. Entergy Texas has not exercised the option to recover its capacity costs under the new rider mechanism, but will continue to evaluate the benefits of utilizing the new rider to recover future capacity costs.

Electric Industry Restructuring

In June 2009, a law was enacted in Texas that required Entergy Texas to cease all activities relating to Entergy Texas’s transition to competition.  The law allows Entergy Texas to remain a part of the SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC) Region, although it does not prevent Entergy Texas from joining another power region.  The law provides that proceedings to certify a power region that Entergy Texas belongs to as a qualified power region can be initiated by the PUCT, or on motion by another party, when the conditions supporting such a proceeding
248

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

exist.  Under the law, the PUCT may not approve a transition to competition plan for Entergy Texas until the expiration of four years from the PUCT’s certification of Entergy Texas’s power region.

The law also contains provisions that allow Entergy Texas to take advantage of a cost recovery mechanism that permits annual filings for the recovery of reasonable and necessary expenditures for transmission infrastructure improvement and changes in wholesale transmission charges.  This mechanism was previously available to other non-ERCOT Texas utility companies, but not to Entergy Texas.

The law further amended already existing law that had required Entergy Texas to propose for PUCT approval a tariff to allow eligible customers the ability to contract for competitive generation.  The amending language in the law provides, among other things, that:  1) the tariff shall not be implemented in a manner that harms the sustainability or competitiveness of manufacturers who choose not to participate in the tariff; 2) Entergy Texas shall “purchase competitive generation service, selected by the customer, and provide the generation at retail to the customer;” and 3) Entergy Texas shall provide and price transmission service and ancillary services under that tariff at a rate that is unbundled from its cost of service.  The law directs that the PUCT may not issue an order on the tariff that is contrary to an applicable decision, rule, or policy statement of a federal regulatory agency having jurisdiction.

The PUCT determined that unrecovered costs that may be recovered through the rider consist only of those costs necessary to implement and administer the competitive generation program and do not include lost revenues or embedded generation costs.  The amount of customer load that may be included in the competitive generation service program is limited to 115 MW.

In September 2011 the PUCT adopted a proposed rule implementing a distribution cost recovery factor to recover capital and capital-related costs related to distribution infrastructure.  The distribution cost recovery factor permits utilities once per year to implement an increase or decrease in rates above or below amounts reflected in base rates to reflect depreciation expense, federal income tax and other taxes, and return on investment.  The distribution cost recovery factor rider may be changed a maximum of four times between base rate cases.

In September 2019 the PUCT initiated a rulemaking to promulgate a generation cost recovery factor rule, implementing legislation passed in the 2019 Texas legislative session intended to allow electric utilities to recover generation investments between base rate proceedings.  The PUCT approved the final rule in July 2020.

Franchises

Entergy Arkansas holds exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 308 incorporated cities and towns in Arkansas.  These franchises are unlimited in duration and continue unless the municipalities purchase the utility property.  In Arkansas franchises are considered to be contracts and, therefore, are terminable pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement and applicable statutes.

Entergy Louisiana announced that it intendedholds non-exclusive franchises to pursueprovide electric service in approximately 175 incorporated municipalities and in the solid fuel repoweringunincorporated areas of a 538 MW unit at its Little Gypsy plant. In March 2009 the LPSC voted in favorapproximately 59 parishes of a motion directingLouisiana.  Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to temporarily suspendprovide natural gas service to customers in the repowering projectCity of Baton Rouge and based upon an analysisin East Baton Rouge Parish.  Municipal franchise agreement terms range from 25 to 60 years while parish franchise terms range from 25 to 99 years.

Entergy Mississippi has received from the MPSC certificates of the project’s economic viability,public convenience and necessity to make a recommendation regarding whetherprovide electric service to proceed with the project. This action was based uponareas within 45 counties, including a number of factors includingmunicipalities, in western Mississippi.  Under Mississippi statutory law, such certificates are exclusive.  Entergy Mississippi may continue to serve in such municipalities upon payment of a statutory franchise fee, regardless of whether an original municipal franchise is still in existence.

249

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans provides electric and gas service in the recent declineCity of New Orleans pursuant to indeterminate permits set forth in naturalcity ordinances.  These ordinances contain a continuing option for the City of New Orleans to purchase Entergy New Orleans’s electric and gas prices,utility properties.

Entergy Texas holds a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PUCT to provide electric service to areas within approximately 27 counties in eastern Texas, and holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 68 incorporated municipalities.  Entergy Texas typically obtains 25-year franchise agreements as existing agreements expire.  Entergy Texas’s electric franchises expire over the period 2020-2058.

The business of System Energy is limited to wholesale power sales.  It has no distribution franchises.

Property and Other Generation Resources

Owned Generating Stations

The total capability of the generating stations owned and leased by the Utility operating companies and System Energy as of December 31, 2020, is indicated below:
 Owned and Leased Capability MW(a)
CompanyTotalGas/OilNuclearCoalHydroSolar
Entergy Arkansas5,175 2,091 1,817 1,194 73 — 
Entergy Louisiana11,317 8,827 2,144 346 — — 
Entergy Mississippi3,347 2,929 — 416 — 
Entergy New Orleans665 638 — — — 27 
Entergy Texas2,260 2,005 — 255 — — 
System Energy1,256 — 1,256 — — — 
Total24,020 16,490 5,217 2,211 73 29 

(a)“Owned and Leased Capability” is the dependable load carrying capability as demonstrated under actual operating conditions based on the primary fuel (assuming no curtailments) that each station was designed to utilize.

Summer peak load for the Utility has averaged 21,591 MW over the previous decade.

The Utility operating companies’ load and capacity projections are reviewed periodically to assess the need and timing for additional generating capacity and interconnections. These reviews consider existing and projected demand, the availability and price of power, the location of new load, the economy, Entergy’s clean energy and other public policy goals, environmental regulations, and the age and condition of Entergy’s existing infrastructure.

The Utility operating companies’ long-term resource strategy (Portfolio Transformation Strategy) calls for the bulk of capacity needs to be met through long-term resources, whether owned or contracted. Over the past decade, the Portfolio Transformation Strategy has resulted in the addition of about 8,801 MW of new long-term resources and the deactivation of about 4,664 MW of legacy generation. As MISO market participants, the Utility operating companies also participate in MISO’s Day Ahead and Real Time Energy and Ancillary Services markets to economically dispatch generation and purchase energy to serve customers reliably and at the lowest reasonable cost.

250

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Generation Resources

RFP Procurements

The Utility operating companies from time to time issue requests for proposals (RFP) to procure supply-side resources from sources other than the spot market to meet the unique regional needs of the Utility operating companies. The RFPs issued by the Utility operating companies have sought resources needed to meet near-term MISO reliability requirements as well as environmental concerns,long-term requirements through a broad range of wholesale power products, including limited-term (1 to 3 years) and long-term contractual products and asset acquisitions. The RFP process has resulted in selections or acquisitions, including, among other things:

Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the unknown costs980 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (previously referred to as the St. Charles generating facility) at its existing Little Gypsy electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in May 2019;
Entergy Texas’s construction of carbon legislationthe 993 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Montgomery County Power Station at its existing Lewis Creek electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in January 2021;
Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 994 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Lake Charles generating facility at its existing Nelson electric generating station site. The facility began commercial operation in March 2020;
In October 2018, Entergy Mississippi signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Sunflower County, Mississippi. Entergy Mississippi received regulatory approval from the MPSC in April 2020, and changesthe facility is scheduled to be in service by early 2022;
In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the capital/financial markets. purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 800 acres in White County near Searcy, Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas received regulatory approval from the APSC in April 2020 and the facility is scheduled to be in service by the end of 2021;
Entergy New Orleans received regulatory approval in August 2019 to construct the New Orleans Solar Station (a 20 MW self-build solar project) located at the NASA Michoud Facility.The facility was placed in service in December 2020;
In April 2009,June 2020, Entergy Louisiana compliedArkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Lee County, Arkansas. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the LPSC’s directive and recommendedAPSC seeking a finding that the project be suspended for an extended period of time of three years or more. In May 2009 the LPSC issued an order declaring that Entergy Louisiana’s decision to place the Little Gypsy project into a longer-term suspension of three years or moretransaction is in the public interest and prudent.requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2022;
In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 180 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,500 acres in Crittenden County, Arkansas. In January 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023; and
In June 2020, Entergy Texas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,200 acres in Liberty County near Dayton, Texas.In September 2020, Entergy Texas filed a petition with the PUCT seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals.Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023.

251

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The RFP process has also resulted in the selection, or confirmation of the economic merits of, long-term purchased power agreements (PPAs), including, among others:

River Bend’s 30% life-of-unit PPA between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans for 100 MW related to Entergy Louisiana’s unregulated portion of the River Bend nuclear station, which portion was formerly owned by Cajun;
Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale base load capacity life-of-unit PPAs executed in 2003 totaling approximately 220 MW between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana (110 MW) and between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy New Orleans (110 MW) related to the sale of a portion of Entergy Arkansas’s coal and nuclear base load resources (which had not been included in Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates);
In May 2011, Entergy Texas and Calpine Energy Services, L.P. executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana purchases 50% of the facility’s capacity and energy from Entergy Texas. In July 2014, LS Power purchased the Carville Energy Center and replaced Calpine Energy Services as the counterparty to the agreement;
In September 2012, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 28 MW, with the potential to purchase an additional 9 MW when available, from Rain CII Carbon LLC’s petroleum coke calcining facility in Sulphur, Louisiana. The facility began commercial operation in May 2013. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with the facility;
In March 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 8.5 MW from Agrilectric Power Partners, LP’s refurbished rice hull-fueled electric generation facility located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with Agrilectric;
In September 2013, Entergy Louisiana executed a 10-year agreement with TX LFG Energy, LP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Montauk Energy Holdings, LLC, to purchase approximately 3 MW from its landfill gas-fueled power generation facility located in Cleveland, Texas;
Entergy Mississippi’s cost-based purchase, beginning in January 2013, of 90 MW from Entergy Arkansas’s share of Grand Gulf (only 60 MW of this PPA came through the RFP process). Cost recovery for the 90 MW was approved by the MPSC in January 2013;
In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas and Stuttgart Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 81 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generation facility located near Stuttgart, Arkansas. The APSC approved the project and deliveries pursuant to that agreement commenced in June 2018;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and LS Power executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and will begin in June 2022;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and Occidental Chemical Corporation executed a 10-year agreement for 500 MW from the Taft Cogeneration facility located in Hahnville, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and began in June 2018;
In June 2017, Entergy Arkansas and Chicot Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 100 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Chicot County, Arkansas. The transaction received regulatory approval and the PPA began in November 2020;
In February 2018, Entergy Louisiana and LA3 West Baton Rouge, LLC (Capital Region Solar project) executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in February 2019 and the PPA began in October 2020;
In July 2018, Entergy New Orleans and St. James Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 20 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021;
In August 2018, Entergy Louisiana and South Alexander Development I, LLC executed a five-year agreement for 5 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The PPA began in December 2020 and received regulatory approval in January 2021;
252

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

In February 2019, Entergy New Orleans and Iris Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Washington Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021; and
In August 2020, Entergy Texas and Umbriel Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 150 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Polk County, Texas.The PPA is expected to start when the facility reaches commercial operation in 2023.

In April 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Texas, issued an RFP for combined-cycle gas turbine capacity and energy resources. The RFP was seeking up to 1,000 MW - 1,200 MW of capacity, capacity-related benefits, energy, other electric products, and environmental attributes, if any, from a single generation resource located in the “Eastern Region” of Entergy Texas’s service area. In December 2020, Entergy Texas posted notice that it has elected to proceed with the self-build alternative, Orange County Power Station. The self-build alternative will be conditioned on receipt of required internal and regulatory approvals.

In June 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Louisiana, issued an RFP for solar photovoltaic resources. The RFP was seeking 300 MW of energy, capacity, capacity-related benefits, other electric products, and environmental attributes from eligible new-build solar photovoltaic generation resources. In December 2020, Entergy Louisiana concluded evaluations of the RFP. Three proposals have been placed on the primary selection list and two proposals have been placed on the secondary selection list. Negotiations are currently in progress.

In January 2021, Entergy Texas provided notice that it intends to issue an RFP for solar generation resources. The RFP is seeking a minimum of 200 MW through a combination of build-own-transfer agreements, self-build alternatives, and power purchase agreements that can provide cost-effective energy supply, fuel diversity, and other benefits to Entergy Texas customers.

Other Procurements From Third Parties

The Utility operating companies have also made resource acquisitions outside of the RFP process, including Entergy Mississippi’s January 2006 acquisition of the 480 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Attala power plant; Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s March 2008 acquisition of the 322 MW, simple-cycle, gas-fired Calcasieu Generating Facility; Entergy Louisiana’s April 2011 acquisition of the 580 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Acadia Energy Center Unit 2; Entergy Arkansas’s (Power Block 2), Entergy Louisiana’s (Power Blocks 3 and 4), and Entergy New Orleans’s (Power Block 1) March 2016 acquisitions of the 1,980 MW (summer rating), natural gas-fired, combined-cycle gas turbine Union Power Station power blocks, each rated at 495 MW (summer rating); and Entergy Mississippi’s October 2009,2019 acquisition of the 810 MW, combined-cycle, natural gas-fired Choctaw Generating Station. The Utility operating companies have also entered into various limited- and long-term contracts in recent years as a result of bilateral negotiations.

The Washington Parish Energy Center is a 361 MW natural gas-fired peaking power plant approximately 60 miles north of New Orleans on a site Entergy Louisiana purchased from Calpine in 2019. In May 2018, Entergy Louisiana received LPSC approval of its certification application for this simple-cycle power plant to be developed pursuant to an agreement between Calpine and Entergy Louisiana. Calpine began construction on the plant in early 2019 and Entergy Louisiana purchased the plant upon completion in November 2020.

The Hardin County Peaking Facility is an existing 147 MW simple-cycle gas-fired peaking power plant in Kountze, Texas, owned by East Texas Electric Cooperative. Entergy Texas is currently seeking regulatory certification to move forward with the purchase of the facility. The facility has been in operation since January 2010.


253

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Power Through Program

In December 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to amend its certificate of convenience and necessity to own and operate up to 75 MW of natural gas-fired distributed generation that is to be installed at commercial and industrial customer premises. If approved, Entergy Texas would own and operate a fleet of generators ranging from 100 kW to 10 MW that would supply a portion of Entergy Texas’s long-term resource needs and enhance the resiliency of Entergy Texas’s electric grid. This fleet of generators would also be available to customers during outages to supply backup electric service as part of a program known as “Power Through.”

Interconnections

The Utility operating companies’ generating units are interconnected to a transmission system operating at various voltages up to 500 kV.  These generating units consist of steam-electric production facilities, combustion-turbine generators, pressurized and boiling water nuclear reactors, and inverter-based technologies operating in the MISO energy and ancillary services market. Entergy’s Utility operating companies are MISO market participants and are interconnected with many neighboring utilities.  MISO is an essential link in the safe, cost-effective delivery of electric power across all or parts of 15 U.S. states and the Canadian province of Manitoba. As a Regional Transmission Organization, MISO assures consumers of unbiased regional grid management and open access to the transmission facilities under MISO’s functional supervision. In addition, the Utility operating companies are members of SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). SERC is a nonprofit corporation responsible for promoting and improving the reliability, adequacy, and critical infrastructure of the bulk power supply systems in all or portions of 16 central and southeastern states.SERC serves as a regional entity with delegated authority from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) for the purpose of proposing and enforcing Bulk Electric System reliability standards within the SERC Region.

Gas Property

As of December 31, 2020, Entergy New Orleans distributed and transported natural gas for distribution within New Orleans, Louisiana, through approximately 2,600 miles of gas pipeline.  As of December 31, 2020, the gas properties of Entergy Louisiana, which are located in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, were not material to Entergy Louisiana’s financial position.

Title

The Utility operating companies’ generating stations are generally located on properties owned in fee simple.  Most of the substations and transmission and distribution lines are constructed on private property or public rights-of-way pursuant to easements, servitudes, or appropriate franchises.  Some substation properties are owned in fee simple.  The Utility operating companies generally have the right of eminent domain, whereby they may perfect title to, or secure easements or servitudes on, private property for their utility operations.

Substantially all of the physical properties and assets owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy are subject to the liens of mortgages securing bonds issued by those companies.  The Lewis Creek generating station of Entergy Texas was acquired by merger with a subsidiary of Entergy Texas and is currently not subject to the lien of the Entergy Texas indenture.


254

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Fuel Supply

The sources of generation and average fuel cost per kWh for the Utility operating companies and System Energy for the years 2018-2020 were:
 Natural GasNuclearCoalPurchased PowerMISO Purchases
Year% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh
202047 1.92 29 0.57 2.54 4.36 13 2.48 
201940 2.33 28 0.73 2.31 4.86 18 2.71 
201839 2.84 27 0.84 2.24 5.23 17 3.71 

Actual 2020 and projected 2021 sources of generation for the Utility operating companies and System Energy, including certain power purchases from affiliates under life of unit power purchase agreements, including the Unit Power Sales Agreement, are:
 Natural GasNuclearCoalPurchased Power (d)MISO Purchases (e)
 2020202120202021202020212020202120202021
Entergy Arkansas (a)24 %35 %60 %51 %10 %13 %%%%— 
Entergy Louisiana51 %59 %26 %27 %%%%12 %13 %— 
Entergy Mississippi (b)73 %69 %14 %22 %%%— — %— 
Entergy New Orleans (b)55 %56 %33 %40 %%%%%%— 
Entergy Texas39 %60 %11 %13 %%%23 %21 %25 %— 
System Energy (c)— — 100 %100 %— — — — — — 
Utility (a) (b)47 %55 %29 %31 %%%%%13 %— 

(a)Hydroelectric power provided less than 1% of Entergy Arkansas’s generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of its generation in 2021.
(b)Solar power provided less than 1% of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of each of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2021.
(c)Capacity and energy from System Energy’s interest in Grand Gulf is allocated as follows under the Unit Power Sales Agreement: Entergy Arkansas - 36%; Entergy Louisiana - 14%; Entergy Mississippi - 33%; and Entergy New Orleans - 17%.  Pursuant to purchased power agreements, Entergy Arkansas is selling a portion of its owned capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.
(d)Excludes MISO purchases.
(e)In December 2013, Entergy integrated its transmission system into the MISO RTO. Entergy offers all of its generation into the MISO energy market on a day-ahead and real-time basis and bids for power in the MISO energy market to serve the demand of its customers, with MISO making dispatch decisions. The MISO purchases metric provided for 2020 is not projected for 2021.

Some of the Utility’s gas-fired plants are also capable of using fuel oil, if necessary. Although based on current economics the Utility does not expect fuel oil use in 2021, it is possible that various operational events including weather or pipeline maintenance may require the use of fuel oil.

Natural Gas

The Utility operating companies have long-term firm and short-term interruptible gas contracts for both supply and transportation. Over 50% of the Utility operating companies’ power plants maintain some level of long-
255

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

term firm transportation. Short-term contracts and spot-market purchases satisfy additional gas requirements.  Entergy Texas owns a gas storage facility that provides reliable and flexible natural gas service to certain generating stations.

Many factors, including wellhead deliverability, storage, pipeline capacity, and demand requirements of end users, influence the availability and price of natural gas supplies for power plants.  Demand is primarily tied to weather conditions as well as to the prices and availability of other energy sources.  Pursuant to federal and state regulations, gas supplies to power plants may be interrupted during periods of shortage.  To the extent natural gas supplies are disrupted or natural gas prices significantly increase, the Utility operating companies may in some instances use alternate fuels, such as oil when available, or rely to a larger extent on coal, nuclear generation, and purchased power.

Coal

Entergy Arkansas has committed to seven one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 85% of the total coal supply needs in 2021.  These contracts are staggered in term so that not all contracts have to be renewed the same year.  The remaining 15% of total coal requirements will be satisfied by contracts with a term of less than one year.  Based on continued improved Powder River Basin (PRB) coal deliveries by rail and the high cost of alternate sources and modes of transportation, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Entergy Arkansas during 2021.  Coal will be transported to Arkansas via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Arkansas’s rail transportation requirements for 2021.

Entergy Louisiana has committed to five one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 90% of Nelson Unit 6 coal needs in 2021.  If needed, additional PRB coal will be purchased through contracts with a term of less than one year to provide the remaining supply needs.  For the same reasons as for Entergy Arkansas’s plants, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Nelson Unit 6 during 2021.  Coal will be transported to Nelson primarily via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Louisiana’s rail transportation requirements for 2021.

For the year 2020, coal transportation delivery rates to Entergy Arkansas-and Entergy Louisiana-operated coal-fired units were adequate to meet supply needs and obligations, and it is expected that delivery times in 2021 will continue to be consistent. Both Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana control a sufficient number of railcars to satisfy the rail transportation requirement.

The operator of Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3, Louisiana Generating, LLC, has advised Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas that it has adequate rail car and barge capacity to meet the volumes of PRB coal requested for 2021.  Entergy Louisiana’s and Entergy Texas’s coal nomination requests to Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3 are made on an annual basis.

Nuclear Fuel

The nuclear fuel cycle consists of the following:

mining and milling of uranium ore to produce a concentrate;
conversion of the concentrate to uranium hexafluoride gas;
enrichment of the uranium hexafluoride gas;
fabrication of nuclear fuel assemblies for use in fueling nuclear reactors; and
disposal of spent fuel.

The Registrant Subsidiaries that own nuclear plants, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, are responsible through a shared regulated uranium pool for contracts to acquire nuclear material to be used in fueling Entergy’s Utility nuclear units.  These companies own the materials and services in this shared regulated
256

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

uranium pool on a pro rata fractional basis determined by the nuclear generation capability of each company.  Any liabilities for obligations of the pooled contracts are on a several but not joint basis.  The shared regulated uranium pool maintains inventories of nuclear materials during the various stages of processing.  The Registrant Subsidiaries purchase enriched uranium hexafluoride for their nuclear plant reload requirements at the average inventory cost from the shared regulated uranium pool.  Entergy Operations, Inc. contracts separately for the fabrication of nuclear fuel as agent on behalf of each of the Registrant Subsidiaries that owns a nuclear plant.  All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and the owner of a nuclear power plant.

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, the Utility nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable or fixed prices through most of 2023. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners.  There are a number of possible supply alternatives that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, including potentially drawing upon Entergy’s inventory intended for later generation periods depending upon its risk management strategy at that time, although the pricing of any alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time.  In addition, some nuclear fuel contracts are on a non-fixed price basis subject to prevailing prices at the time of delivery.

The effects of market price changes may be reduced and deferred by risk management strategies, such as negotiation of floor and ceiling amounts for long-term contracts, buying for inventory or entering into forward physical contracts at fixed prices when Entergy believes it is appropriate and useful.  Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S.

Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. There are fewer of these providers than for uranium. For conversion and enrichment services, like uranium, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures as needed to ensure supply of enriched uranium for the reliable fabrication of nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the effective performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel, therefore, Entergy provides additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight for the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy each have made arrangements to lease nuclear fuel and related equipment and services.  The lessors, which are consolidated in the financial statements of Entergy and the applicable Registrant Subsidiary, finance the acquisition and ownership of nuclear fuel through credit agreements and the issuance of notes.  These credit facilities are subject to periodic renewal, and the notes are issued periodically, typically for terms between three and seven years.

Natural Gas Purchased for Resale

Entergy New Orleans has several suppliers of natural gas.  Its system is interconnected with one interstate and three intrastate pipelines.  Entergy New Orleans has a “no-notice” service gas purchase contract with CenterPoint Energy Services which guarantees Entergy New Orleans gas delivery at specific delivery points and at any volume within the minimum and maximum set forth in the contract amounts.  The CenterPoint Energy Service gas supply is transported to Entergy New Orleans pursuant to a transportation service agreement with Gulf South Pipeline Co.  This service is subject to FERC-approved rates.  Entergy New Orleans also makes interruptible spot market purchases.

Entergy Louisiana purchased natural gas for resale in 2020 under a firm contract from Sequent Energy Management L.P.  The gas is delivered through a combination of intrastate and interstate pipelines.

257

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

As a result of the implementation of FERC-mandated interstate pipeline restructuring in 1993, curtailments of interstate gas supply could occur if Entergy Louisiana’s or Entergy New Orleans’s suppliers failed to perform their obligations to deliver gas under their supply agreements.  Gulf South Pipeline Co. could curtail transportation capacity only in the event of pipeline system constraints.

Federal Regulation of the Utility

State or local regulatory authorities, as described above, regulate the retail rates of the Utility operating companies.  The FERC regulates wholesale sales of electricity rates and interstate transmission of electricity, including System Energy’s sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of federal regulation proceedings.

System Agreement (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Prior to each operating company’s termination of participation in the System Agreement (Entergy Arkansas in December 2013, Entergy Mississippi in November 2015, and Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each in August 2016), the Utility operating companies engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which was a rate schedule approved by the FERC. Under the terms of the System Agreement, generating capacity and other power resources were jointly operated by the Utility operating companies that were participating in the System Agreement.  The System Agreement provided, among other things, that parties having generating reserves greater than their allocated share of reserves (long companies) would receive payments from those parties having generating reserves that were less than their allocated share of reserves (short companies).  Such payments were at amounts sufficient to cover certain of the long companies’ costs for intermediate and peaking oil/gas-fired generation, including operating expenses, fixed charges on debt, dividend requirements on preferred equity, and a fair rate of return on common equity investment.  Under the System Agreement, the rates used to compensate long companies were based on costs associated with the long companies’ steam electric generating units fueled by oil or gas and having an annual average heat rate above 10,000 Btu/kWh.  In addition, for all energy exchanged among the Utility operating companies under the System Agreement, the companies purchasing exchange energy were required to pay the cost of fuel consumed in generating such energy plus a charge to cover other associated costs.

Although the System Agreement has terminated, certain of the Utility operating companies’ and their retail regulators are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC and in federal courts. The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and other matters. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of legal proceedings at the FERC and in federal courts involving the System Agreement.

Transmission and MISO Markets

In December 2013 the Utility operating companies integrated into the MISO RTO. Although becoming a member of MISO did not affect the ownership by the Utility operating companies of their transmission facilities or the responsibility for maintaining those facilities, MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. MISO also exercises functional control of transmission planning and congestion management and provides schedules and pricing for the commitment and dispatch of generation that is offered into MISO’s markets, as well as pricing for load that bids into the markets. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a bilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. Each Utility operating company has its own transmission pricing zone and a formula rate template (included as Attachment O to the MISO tariff) used to
258

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

establish transmission rates within MISO. The terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs, are subject to regulation by the FERC.

System Energy and Related Agreements

System Energy recovers costs related to its interest in Grand Gulf through rates charged to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans for capacity and energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (described below).  In July 2001 a rate proceeding commenced by System Energy at the FERC in 1995 became final, with the FERC approving a prospective 10.94% return on equity.    In 1998 the FERC approved requests by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi to accelerate a portion of their Grand Gulf purchased power obligations.  Entergy Arkansas’s and Entergy Mississippi’s acceleration of Grand Gulf purchased power obligations ceased effective July 2001 and July 2003, respectively, as approved by the FERC. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of complaints filed with the FERC regarding System Energy’s return on equity.

Unit Power Sales Agreement

The Unit Power Sales Agreement allocates capacity, energy, and the related costs from System Energy’s ownership and leasehold interests in Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas (36%), Entergy Louisiana (14%), Entergy Mississippi (33%), and Entergy New Orleans (17%).  Each of these companies is obligated to make payments to System Energy for its entitlement of capacity and energy on a full cost-of-service basis regardless of the quantity of energy delivered.  Payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are System Energy’s only source of operating revenue.  The financial condition of System Energy depends upon the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf and the receipt of such payments.  Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans generally recover payments made under the Unit Power Sales Agreement through rates charged to their customers.

In the case of Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana, payments are also recovered through sales of electricity from their respective retained shares of Grand Gulf.  Under a settlement agreement entered into with the APSC in 1985 and amended in 1988, Entergy Arkansas retains 22% of its 36% share of Grand Gulf-related costs and recovers the remaining 78% of its share in rates.  In the event that Entergy Arkansas is not able to sell its retained share to third parties, it may sell such energy to its retail customers at a price equal to its avoided cost, which is currently less than Entergy Arkansas’s cost from its retained share.  Entergy Arkansas has life-of-resources purchased power agreements with Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans that sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s retained share of Grand Gulf to those companies, with the remainder of the retained share being sold to Entergy Mississippi through a separate life-of-resources purchased power agreement.  In a series of LPSC orders, court decisions, and agreements from late 1985 to mid-1988, Entergy Louisiana was granted rate relief with respect to costs associated with Entergy Louisiana’s share of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf, subject to certain terms and conditions.  Entergy Louisiana retains and does not recover from retail ratepayers 18% of its 14% share of the costs of Grand Gulf capacity and energy and recovers the remaining 82% of its share in rates.  Entergy Louisiana is allowed to recover through the fuel adjustment clause at 4.6 cents per kWh for the energy related to its retained portion of these costs.  Alternatively, Entergy Louisiana may sell such energy to non-affiliated parties at prices above the fuel adjustment clause recovery amount, subject to the LPSC’s approval. Entergy Arkansas also has a life-of-resources purchased power agreement with Entergy Mississippi to sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s non-retained share of Grand Gulf. Entergy Mississippi was granted rate relief for those purchases by the MPSC through its annual unit power cost rate mechanism.

Availability Agreement

The Availability Agreement among System Energy and Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans was entered into in 1974 in connection with the financing by System Energy
259

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

of Grand Gulf. The Availability Agreement provides that System Energy make available to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans all capacity and energy available from System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans also agreed severally to pay System Energy monthly for the right to receive capacity and energy from Grand Gulf in amounts that (when added to any amounts received by System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement) would at least equal System Energy’s total operating expenses for Grand Gulf (including depreciation at a specified rate and expenses incurred in a permanent shutdown of Grand Gulf) and interest charges.

The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement are fixed as follows: Entergy Arkansas - 17.1%; Entergy Louisiana - 26.9%; Entergy Mississippi - 31.3%; and Entergy New Orleans - 24.7%. The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement would remain in effect and would govern payments made under such agreement in the event of a shortfall of funds available to System Energy from other sources, including payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

System Energy has assigned its rights to payments and advances from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under the Availability Agreement as security for its two outstanding series of first mortgage bonds.  In these assignments, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans further agreed that, in the event they were prohibited by governmental action from making payments under the Availability Agreement (for example, if the FERC reduced or disallowed such payments as constituting excessive rates), they would then make subordinated advances to System Energy in the same amounts and at the same times as the prohibited payments. System Energy would not be allowed to repay these subordinated advances so long as it remained in default under the related indebtedness or in other similar circumstances.

Each of the assignment agreements relating to the Availability Agreement provides that Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans will make payments directly to System Energy. However, if there is an event of default, those payments must be made directly to the holders of indebtedness that are the beneficiaries of such assignment agreements. The payments must be made pro rata according to the amount of the respective obligations secured.

The obligations of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans to make payments under the Availability Agreement are subject to the receipt and continued effectiveness of all necessary regulatory approvals.  Sales of capacity and energy under the Availability Agreement would require that the Availability Agreement be submitted to the FERC for approval with respect to the terms of such sale. No such filing with the FERC has been made because sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf are being made pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement.  If, for any reason, sales of capacity and energy are made in the future pursuant to the Availability Agreement, the jurisdictional portions of the Availability Agreement would be submitted to the FERC for approval.

Since commercial operation of Grand Gulf began, payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement to System Energy have exceeded the amounts payable under the Availability Agreement and, therefore, no payments under the Availability Agreement have ever been required.  If Entergy Arkansas or Entergy Mississippi fails to make its Unit Power Sales Agreement payments, and System Energy is unable to obtain funds from other sources, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans could become subject to claims or demands by System Energy or its creditors for payments or advances under the Availability Agreement (or the assignments thereof) equal to the difference between their required Unit Power Sales Agreement payments and their required Availability Agreement payments because their Availability Agreement obligations exceed their Unit Power Sales Agreement obligations.

The Availability Agreement may be terminated, amended, or modified by mutual agreement of the parties thereto, without further consent of any assignees or other creditors.
260

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Service Companies

Entergy Services, a limited liability company wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation, provides management, administrative, accounting, legal, engineering, and other services primarily to the Utility operating companies, but also provides services to Entergy Wholesale Commodities. Entergy Operations is also wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation and provides nuclear management, operations and maintenance services under contract for ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, subject to the owner oversight of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, respectively.  Entergy Services and Entergy Operations provide their services to the Utility operating companies and System Energy on an “at cost” basis, pursuant to cost allocation methodologies for these service agreements that were approved by the FERC.

Jurisdictional Separation of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. into Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas

Effective December 31, 2007, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. completed a jurisdictional separation into two vertically integrated utility companies, one operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the PUCT, Entergy Texas, and the other operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the LPSC, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana.  Entergy Texas owns all Entergy Gulf States, Inc. distribution and transmission assets located in Texas, the gas-fired generating plants located in Texas, undivided 42.5% ownership shares of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.’s 70% ownership interest in Nelson Unit 6 and 42% ownership interest in Big Cajun 2, Unit 3, which are coal-fired generating plants located in Louisiana, and other assets and contract rights to the extent related to utility operations in Texas.  Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, owns all of the remaining assets that were owned by Entergy Gulf States, Inc.  On a book value basis, approximately 58.1% of the Entergy Gulf States, Inc. assets were allocated to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and approximately 41.9% were allocated to Entergy Texas.

Entergy Texas purchases from Entergy Louisiana pursuant to a life-of-unit purchased power agreement a 42.5% share of capacity and energy from the 70% of River Bend subject to retail regulation.  Entergy Texas was allocated a share of River Bend’s nuclear and environmental liabilities that is identical to the share of the plant’s output purchased by Entergy Texas under the purchased power agreement.  In connection with the termination of the System Agreement effective August 31, 2016, the purchased power agreements that were put in place for certain legacy units at the time of the jurisdictional separation were also terminated at that time. See Note 2 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the purchased power agreements.

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” (Entergy Louisiana). With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana.

261

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans Internal Restructuring

In November 2017, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans, Inc. undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy New Orleans, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which included a call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. converted from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2017, Entergy New Orleans, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Group, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power then changed its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC. Entergy New Orleans, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Arkansas Internal Restructuring

In November 2018, Entergy Arkansas undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $32.7 million.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. converted from an Arkansas corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Arkansas, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Arkansas Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Arkansas Power), and Entergy Arkansas Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Arkansas Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Property, Inc., and Entergy Arkansas Power then changed its name to Entergy Arkansas, LLC. Entergy Arkansas, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. The transaction was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Mississippi Internal Restructuring

In November 2018, Entergy Mississippi undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy Mississippi, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock, at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $21.2 million.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. converted from a Mississippi corporation to a Texas corporation.
262

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Mississippi, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Mississippi Power and Light), and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Mississippi, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Mississippi, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Mississippi, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Enterprises, Inc., and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light then changed its name to Entergy Mississippi, LLC. Entergy Mississippi, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Mississippi, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants, located in the northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities revenues are primarily derived from sales of energy and generation capacity from these plants. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also provides operations and management services, including decommissioning-related services, to nuclear power plants owned by non-affiliated entities in the United States. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers.

See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.

Property

Nuclear Generating Stations

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership of the following nuclear power plants:
Power PlantMarketIn Service YearAcquiredLocationCapacity - Reactor TypeLicense Expiration Date
Indian Point 3 (a)NYISO1976Nov. 2000Buchanan, NY1,041 MW - Pressurized Water2025 (a)
Indian Point 2 (a)NYISO1974Sept. 2001Buchanan, NY1,028 MW - Pressurized Water2024 (a)
Palisades (b)MISO1971Apr. 2007Covert,
MI
811 MW - Pressurized Water2031 (b)

(a)Power operations ceased at the Indian Point 2 plant in April 2020. The fuel was permanently removed from the reactor vessel and placed in the spent fuel pool in May 2020. The Indian Point 3 plant is expected to cease operations on April 30, 2021. Entergy and Holtec jointly filed a license transfer application with the NRC in November 2019, requesting approval for the transfer of the Indian Point plants, along with their nuclear decommissioning trusts and decommissioning liabilities, from Entergy to Holtec. The NRC approved the license transfer application on November 23, 2020.
263

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

(b)The Palisades plant is expected to cease operations on May 31, 2022. There is a contract to sell the plant to Holtec subject to NRC and other regulatory approvals.

See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of two non-operating nuclear facilities, Big Rock Point in Michigan and Indian Point 1 in New York that were acquired when Entergy purchased the Palisades and Indian Point 2 nuclear plants, respectively. These facilities are in various stages of the decommissioning process. Both Big Rock Point and Indian Point 1 are under contract to be sold with their respective plants.

Non-nuclear Generating Stations

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, or interests in joint ventures that own, the following non-nuclear power plants:
PlantLocationOwnershipNet Owned Capacity (a)Type
Independence Unit 2;   842 MWNewark, AR14%    121 MW(b)Coal
RS Cogen;   425 MW (c)Lake Charles, LA50%213 MWGas/Steam
Nelson Unit 6;   550 MWWestlake, LA11%       60 MW(b)Coal

(a)“Net Owned Capacity” refers to the nameplate rating on the generating unit.
(b)The owned MW capacity is the portion of the plant capacity owned by Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  For a complete listing of Entergy’s jointly-owned generating stations, refer to “Jointly-Owned Generating Stations” in Note 1 to the financial statements.
(c)Indirectly owned through an interest in an unconsolidated joint venture. In December 2020, Entergy’s wholly-owned subsidiary with a direct interest in RS Cogen, LLC entered into a membership interest purchase agreement with a subsidiary of the other 50% equity partner to sell its 50% membership interest in the joint venture to the equity partner. The targeted closing date for the transaction is October 2022.

Independent System Operators

The Indian Point plants fall under the authority of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). The Palisades plant falls under the authority of the MISO. The primary purpose of NYISO and MISO is to direct the operations of the major generation and transmission facilities in their respective regions; ensure grid reliability; administer and monitor wholesale electricity markets; and plan for their respective region’s energy needs.

Energy and Capacity Sales

As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy in the day ahead or spot markets.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities also sells unforced capacity, which allows load-serving entities to meet specified reserve and related requirements placed on them by the ISOs in their respective areas.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward physical power contracts consist of contracts to sell energy only, contracts to sell capacity only, and bundled contracts in which it sells both capacity and energy.  While the terminology and payment mechanics vary in these contracts, each of these types of contracts requires Entergy Wholesale Commodities to deliver MWh of energy, make capacity available, or both.See “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for additional information regarding these contracts.

264

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

As part of the purchase of the Palisades plant in 2007, Entergy executed a 15-year PPA with the seller, Consumers Energy, for 100% of the plant’s output, excluding any future uprates. Under the purchased power agreement, Consumers Energy receives the value of any new environmental credits for the first ten years of the agreement. Palisades and Consumers Energy will share on a 50/50 basis the value of any new environmental credits for years 11 through 15 of the agreement. The environmental credits are defined as benefits from a change in law that causes capability of the plant as of the purchase date to become a tradable attribute (e.g., emission credit, renewable energy credit, environmental credit, “green” credit, etc.) or otherwise to have a market value. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on May 31, 2022 and transfer to Holtec thereafter.

Customers

Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ customers for the sale of both energy and capacity from its nuclear plants include retail power providers, utilities, electric power co-operatives, power trading organizations, and other power generation companies. These customers include Consumers Energy, the company from which Entergy purchased the Palisades plant, and NYISO and MISO. Substantially all the credit exposure associated with the planned energy output under contract for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants is with counterparties or their guarantors that have public investment grade credit ratings.

Competition

The NYISO market is highly competitive. Entergy Wholesale Commodities has numerous competitors in New York including generation companies affiliated with regulated utilities, other independent power producers, municipal and co-operative generators, owners of co-generation plants and wholesale power marketers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities is an independent power producer, which means it generates power for sale to third parties at day ahead or spot market prices to the extent that the power is not sold under a fixed price contract. Municipal and co-operative generators also generate power but use most of it to deliver power to their municipal or co-operative power customers. Owners of co-generation plants produce power primarily for their own consumption. Wholesale power marketers do not own generation; rather they buy power from generators or other market participants and resell it to retail providers or other market participants. Competition in the New York power market is affected by, among other factors, the amount of generation and transmission capacity in these markets. MISO does not have a centralized clearing capacity market, but load serving entities do meet most of their capacity needs through bilateral contracts and self-supply with a smaller portion coming through voluntary MISO auctions. Almost all of Palisades’ current output is contracted to Consumers Energy through May 2022. Entergy Wholesale Commodities does not expect to be materially affected by competition in the MISO market in the near term.

Seasonality

Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues and operating income are subject to fluctuations during the year due to seasonal factors, weather conditions, and contract pricing. When outdoor and cooling water temperatures are low, generally during colder months, Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants operate more efficiently, and consequently, generate more electricity. Many of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contracts provide for shaped pricing over the course of the year. As a result of these factors, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues are typically higher in the first and third quarters than in the second and fourth quarters.

Fuel Supply

Nuclear Fuel

See “Fuel Supply - Nuclear Fuel” in the Utility portion of Part I, Item 1 for a discussion of the nuclear fuel cycle and markets. Entergy Nuclear Fuels Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, is responsible for contracts to acquire nuclear materials, except for fuel fabrication, for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants,
265

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

while Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. acts as the agent for the purchase of nuclear fuel assembly fabrication services. All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and each of the nuclear power plant owners. The nuclear fuel supply portfolio for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment has been adjusted to reflect reduced overall requirements related to the planned permanent shutdowns of the Indian Point 3 and Palisades plants. Fuel procurement for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment was primarily limited to the requirements of the Palisades plant’s final refueling in 2020.

Other Business Activities

Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC (ENPM) was formed in 2005 to centralize the power marketing function for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants. Upon its formation, ENPM entered into long-term power purchase agreements with the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries that own nuclear power plants (generating subsidiaries). As part of a series of agreements, ENPM agreed to assume and/or otherwise service the existing power purchase agreements that were in effect between the generating subsidiaries and their customers. ENPM’s functions include origination of new energy and capacity transactions and generation scheduling.

Services provided by either Entergy Nuclear, Inc. or other Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries include engineering, operations and maintenance, fuel procurement, management and supervision, technical support and training, administrative support, and other managerial or technical services required to operate, maintain, and decommission nuclear electric power facilities.

TLG Services, a subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment, offers decommissioning, engineering, and related services to nuclear power plant owners.

Entergy provides plant operation support services for the 800 MW Cooper Nuclear Station located near Brownville, Nebraska. In 2010 an Entergy subsidiary signed an agreement to extend the management support services to Cooper Nuclear Station by 15 years, through January 2029.

Regulation of Entergy’s Business

Federal Power Act

The Federal Power Act provides the FERC the authority to regulate:

the transmission and wholesale sale of electric energy in interstate commerce;
the reliability of the high voltage interstate transmission system through reliability standards;
sale or acquisition of certain assets;
securities issuances;
the licensing of certain hydroelectric projects;
certain other activities, including accounting policies and practices of electric and gas utilities; and
changes in control of FERC jurisdictional entities or rate schedules.

The Federal Power Act gives the FERC jurisdiction over the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf capacity and energy provided to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans and over the rates charged by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana to unaffiliated wholesale customers. The FERC also regulates wholesale power sales between the Utility operating companies. In addition, the FERC regulates the MISO RTO, an independent entity that maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy, capacity, and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. FERC regulation of the MISO RTO includes regulation of the design and implementation of the wholesale markets administered by the MISO RTO, as well as the rates, terms, and conditions of open access transmission service over the member systems and the allocation of costs associated with transmission upgrades.
266

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Entergy Arkansas holds a FERC license that expires in 2053 for two hydroelectric projects totaling 70 MW of capacity.

State Regulation

Utility

Entergy Arkansas is subject to regulation by the APSC as to the following:

utility service;
utility service areas;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery rider;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
the acquisition, sale, or lease of any public utility plant or property constituting an operating unit or system;
certificates of convenience and necessity and certificates of environmental compatibility and public need, as applicable, for generating and transmission facilities;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering;
integrated resource planning;
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control; and
the issuance and sale of certain securities.

Additionally, Entergy Arkansas serves a limited number of retail customers in Tennessee. Pursuant to legislation enacted in Tennessee, Entergy Arkansas is subject to complaints before the Tennessee Regulatory Authority only if it fails to treat its retail customers in Tennessee in the same manner as its retail customers in Arkansas. Additionally, Entergy Arkansas maintains limited facilities in Missouri but does not provide retail electric service to customers in Missouri. Although Entergy Arkansas obtained a certificate with respect to its Missouri facilities, Entergy Arkansas is not subject to retail ratemaking or other regulatory jurisdiction in Missouri.

Entergy Louisiana’s electric and gas business is subject to regulation by the LPSC as to the following:

utility service;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment clause and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission projects;
certification of capacity acquisitions, both for owned capacity and purchase power contracts;
procurement process to acquire over 50 MW;
audits of the environmental adjustment charge, avoided cost payment to Qualifying Facilities, and energy efficiency rider;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.

Entergy Mississippi is subject to regulation by the MPSC as to the following:

utility service;
utility service areas;
267

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery mechanism;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of generating facilities and certain transmission projects;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers, acquisitions, and other changes of control.

Entergy Mississippi is also subject to regulation by the APSC as to the certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the Independence Station, which is located in Arkansas.

Entergy New Orleans is subject to regulation by the City Council as to the following:

utility service;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment charge and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
audit of the environmental adjustment charge;
certification of the construction or extension of any new plant, equipment, property, or facility that comprises more than 2% of the utility’s rate base;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering;
issuance and sale of certain securities; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.

To the extent authorized by governing legislation, Entergy Texas is subject to the original jurisdiction of the municipal authorities of a number of incorporated cities in Texas with appellate jurisdiction over such matters residing in the PUCT.  Entergy Texas is also subject to regulation by the PUCT as to the following:

retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates, and terms and conditions of service in unincorporated areas of its service territory, and in municipalities that have ceded jurisdiction to the PUCT;
fuel recovery, including reconciliations (audits) of the fuel adjustment charges;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission and generation projects;
utility service areas, including extensions into new areas;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers, sales/acquisitions/leases of plants over $10 million, sales of greater than 50% voting stock of utilities, and transfers of controlling interest in or operation of utilities.

268

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the operation of nuclear plants is heavily regulated by the NRC, which has broad power to impose licensing and safety-related requirements.  The NRC has broad authority to impose civil penalties or shut down a unit, or both, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, as owners of all or portions of ANO, River Bend and Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively, and Entergy Operations, as the licensee and operator of these units, are subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC. Entergy subsidiaries in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment are subject to the NRC’s jurisdiction as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, Palisades, and Big Rock Point.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

Spent Nuclear Fuel

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy Arkansas is the only one of the Utility operating companies that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and has a recorded liability as of December 31, 2020 of $192.0 million for the one-time fee. Entergy accepted assignment of the Pilgrim, FitzPatrick, Indian Point 3, Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2, Vermont Yankee, Palisades, and Big Rock Point spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE held by their previous owners. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the sale of the plant, completed in March 2017. The Vermont Yankee spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to NorthStar as part of the sale of the plant in January 2019. The Pilgrim spent fuel disposal contract was transferred to Holtec as part of the sale of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company in August 2019. The owners of these plants previous to Entergy have paid or retained liability for the fees for all generation prior to the purchase dates of those plants. The fees payable to the DOE may be adjusted in the future to assure full recovery.  Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense.  Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants.  Entergy’s total spent fuel fees to date, including the one-time fee liability of Entergy Arkansas, have surpassed $1.6 billion (exclusive of amounts relating to Entergy plants that were paid or are owed by prior owners of those plants).

The permanent spent fuel repository in the U.S. has been legislated to be Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing (the DOE filed the license application in June 2008) and, after the license is granted by the NRC, proceed with the repository construction and commencement of receipt of spent fuel. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. The DOE continues to delay meeting its obligation. Specific steps were taken to discontinue the Yucca Mountain project, including a motion to the NRC to withdraw the license application with prejudice and the establishment of a commission to develop recommendations for alternative spent fuel storage solutions. In August 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the NRC to continue with the Yucca Mountain license review, but only to the extent of funds previously appropriated by Congress for that purpose and not yet used. Although the NRC completed the safety evaluation report for the license review in 2015, the previously appropriated funds are not sufficient to complete the review, including required hearings. The government has taken no effective action to date related to the recommendations of the appointed spent fuel study commission. Accordingly, large uncertainty remains regarding the time frame under
269

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

which the DOE will begin to accept spent fuel from Entergy’s facilities for storage or disposal. As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at Entergy’s nuclear sites.

Following the defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014.

As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. These subsidiaries have been, and continue to be, involved in litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2018, 2019, and 2020 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries’ litigation with the DOE. Through 2020, Entergy’s subsidiaries won and collected on judgments against the government totaling approximately $800 million.

Pending DOE acceptance and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the owners of nuclear plants are providing their own spent fuel storage.  Storage capability additions using dry casks began operations at Palisades in 1993, at ANO in 1996, at River Bend in 2005, at Grand Gulf in 2006, at Indian Point in 2008, and at Waterford 3 in 2011.  These facilities will be expanded as needed.

Nuclear Plant Decommissioning

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for ANO, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively.  In addition, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for the portion of River Bend subject to retail rate regulation. The collections are deposited in trust funds that can only be used in accordance with NRC and other applicable regulatory requirements.  Entergy periodically reviews and updates the estimated decommissioning costs to reflect inflation and changes in regulatory requirements and technology, and then makes applications to the regulatory authorities to reflect, in rates, the changes in projected decommissioning costs.

In December 2018 the APSC ordered collections in rates for decommissioning ANO 2 and found that ANO 1’s decommissioning was adequately funded without additional collections. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a revised decommissioning cost recovery tariff for ANO indicating that both ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning trusts were adequately funded without further collections, and in December 2020, the APSC ordered zero collections for ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning.

In July 2010 the LPSC approved increased decommissioning collections for Waterford 3 and the Louisiana regulated share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls. This LPSC decision contemplated that the level of decommissioning collections could be revisited should the NRC grant license extensions for both Waterford 3 and River Bend. In July 2019, following the NRC approval of license extensions for Waterford 3 and River Bend, Entergy Louisiana made a filing with the LPSC seeking permission to canceladjust decommissioning and depreciation rates for those plants, including one proposed scenario that would adjust Louisiana-jurisdictional decommissioning collections to zero for both plants (including an offsetting increase in depreciation rates). Because of the Little Gypsy repowering projectongoing public health emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying economic uncertainty, Entergy Louisiana determined that the relief sought in the filing was no longer appropriate, and in November 2020, filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the proceeding. Following that filing, in a December 2020 order, the LPSC dismissed the proceeding without prejudice.
270

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


In December 2010 the PUCT approved increased decommissioning collections for the Texas share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls.  In December 2018 the PUCT approved a settlement that eliminated River Bend decommissioning collections for the Texas jurisdictional share of the plant based on a determination by Entergy Texas that the existing decommissioning fund was adequate following license renewal.

In September 2016 the NRC issued a 20-year operating license renewal for Grand Gulf. In a 2017 filing at the FERC, System Energy stated that with the renewed operating license, Grand Gulf’s decommissioning trust was sufficiently funded, and proposed, among other things, to cease decommissioning collections for Grand Gulf effective October 1, 2017. The FERC accepted a settlement including the proposed decommissioning revenue requirement by letter order in August 2018.

Entergy currently believes its decommissioning funding will be sufficient for its nuclear plants subject to retail rate regulation, although decommissioning cost inflation and trust fund performance will ultimately determine the adequacy of the funding amounts.

In January 2019, Entergy sold 100% of the membership interest in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to a subsidiary of NorthStar. As a result of the sale, NorthStar assumed ownership of Vermont Yankee and its decommissioning and site restoration trusts, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of Vermont Yankee decommissioning costs and see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the NorthStar transaction.

In August 2019, Entergy sold 100% of the equity interests in Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, LLC to a subsidiary of Holtec International. As a result of the sale, Holtec assumed ownership of Pilgrim and its decommissioning trust, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale.

For the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants purchased in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust funds and the decommissioning liabilities with the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume each of the decommissioning liabilities provided that it assigns the corresponding decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to the Entergy subsidiaries.  In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy, which was completed in January 2017. In March 2017, Entergy sold the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon, and as part of the transaction, the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund, along with the decommissioning obligation for that plant, was transferred to Exelon. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the transaction. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the FitzPatrick sale.

In March 2020 filings with the NRC were made reporting on decommissioning funding for all of Entergy subsidiaries’ nuclear plants.  Those reports showed that decommissioning funding for each of the nuclear plants met the NRC’s financial assurance requirements.

Additional information with respect to Entergy’s decommissioning costs and decommissioning trust funds is found in Note 9 and Note 16 to the financial statements.

Price-Anderson Act

The Price-Anderson Act requires that reactor licensees purchase and maintain the maximum amount of nuclear liability insurance available and participate in an industry assessment program called Secondary Financial Protection in order to protect the public in the event of a nuclear power plant accident.  The costs of this insurance
271

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

are borne by the nuclear power industry.  Congress amended and renewed the Price-Anderson Act in 2005 for a term through 2025.  The Price-Anderson Act limits the contingent liability for a single nuclear incident to a maximum assessment of approximately $137.6 million per reactor (with 97 nuclear industry reactors currently participating).  In the case of a nuclear event in which Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, or an Entergy Wholesale Commodities company is liable, protection is afforded through a combination of private insurance and the Secondary Financial Protection program. In addition to this, insurance for property damage, costs of replacement power, and other risks relating to nuclear generating units is also purchased.  The Price-Anderson Act and insurance applicable to the nuclear programs of Entergy are discussed in more detail in Note 8 to the financial statements.

NRC Reactor Oversight Process

The NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process is a program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response. The NRC evaluates plant performance by analyzing two distinct inputs: inspection findings resulting from the NRC’s inspection program and performance indicators reported by the licensee. The evaluations result in the placement of each plant in one of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix columns: “licensee response column,” or Column 1, “regulatory response column,” or Column 2, “degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 3, and “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4. Plants in Column 1 are subject to normal NRC inspection activities. Plants in Column 2, Column 3, or Column 4 are subject to progressively increasing levels of inspection by the NRC with, in general, progressively increasing levels of associated costs. The nuclear generating plants owned and operated by Entergy’s Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses are currently in Column 1, except for Grand Gulf, which is currently in Column 2.

In November 2020 the NRC placed Grand Gulf in Column 2 based on the incidence of three unplanned plant scrams during the second and third quarters of 2020.Two of the scram events related to new turbine control system components that failed, and a third related to a feedwater valve positioner that failed, all of which had been replaced in a refueling outage that ended in May 2020. The NRC plans to conduct a supplemental inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 2. As a consequence of two additional Grand Gulf scrams during the fourth quarter 2020, System Energy expects Grand Gulf to be placed into NRC Column 3 based on plant performance indicators for the four quarters ended December 31, 2020. This will involve an additional supplemental NRC inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 3.

Environmental Regulation

Entergy’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.  Management believes that Entergy’s businesses are in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted below.  Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance requirements and costs cannot be precisely estimated.  Except to the extent discussed below, at this time compliance with federal, state, and local provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise protecting the environment, is incorporated into the routine cost structure of Entergy’s businesses and is not expected to have a material effect on their competitive position, results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

272

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Clean Air Act and Subsequent Amendments

The Clean Air Act and its amendments establish several programs that currently or in the future may affect Entergy’s fossil-fueled generation facilities and, to a lesser extent, certain operations at nuclear and other facilities.  Individual states also operate similar independent state programs or delegated federal programs that may include requirements more stringent than federal regulatory requirements.  These programs include:

New source review and preconstruction permits for new sources of criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and significant modifications to existing facilities;
Acid rain program for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx);
Nonattainment area programs for control of criteria air pollutants, which could include fee assessments for air pollutant emission sources under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act if attainment is not reached in a timely manner;
Hazardous air pollutant emissions reduction programs;
Interstate Air Transport;
Operating permit programs and enforcement of these and other Clean Air Act programs;
Regional Haze programs; and
New and existing source standards for greenhouse gas and other air emissions.

New Source Review (NSR)

Preconstruction permits are required for new facilities and for existing facilities that undergo a modification that results in a significant net emissions increase and is not classified as routine repair, maintenance, or replacement.  Units that undergo certain non-routine modifications must obtain a permit modification and may be required to install additional air pollution control technologies. In December 2020 the EPA amended the NSR regulations to clarify when a physical change or change in the method of operation will constitute such a modification. Entergy has an established process for identifying modifications requiring additional permitting approval and is monitoring the regulations and associated guidance provided by the states and the federal government with regard to the determination of routine repair, maintenance, and replacement.  Several years ago, however, the EPA implemented an enforcement initiative, aimed primarily at coal plants, to identify modifications that it does not consider routine for which the unit did not obtain a modified permit.  Various courts and the EPA have been inconsistent in their judgments regarding modifications that are considered routine and on other legal issues that affect this program.

In February 2011, Entergy received a request from the EPA for several categories of information concerning capital and maintenance projects at the White Bluff and Independence facilities, both located in Arkansas, in order to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act, including NSR requirements and air permits issued by the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). In August 2011, Entergy’s Nelson facility, located in Louisiana, received a similar request for information from the EPA. In September 2015 an additional request for similar information was received for the White Bluff facility. Entergy responded to all requests. None of these EPA requests for information alleged that the facilities were in violation of law.

In January and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Independence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. In November 2018, following extensive negotiations, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Power entered a proposed settlement resolving those claims as well as other issues facing Entergy Arkansas’s fossil generation plants. The settlement, which formally resolves a complaint filed by the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In October 2019 the District Court requested supplemental briefing on several issues to be resolved prior to addressing the motion to approve the
273

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

settlement; that briefing was completed in May 2020. For further information about the settlement, see “Regional Haze” discussed below.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide, and requires periodic review of those standards. When an area fails to meet an ambient standard, it is considered to be in nonattainment and is classified as “marginal,” “moderate,” “serious,” or “severe.” When an area fails to meet the ambient air standard, the EPA requires state regulatory authorities to prepare state implementation plans meant to cause progress toward bringing the area into attainment with applicable standards.

Ozone Nonattainment

Entergy Texas operates two fossil-fueled generating facilities (Lewis Creek and Montgomery County Power Station) in a geographic area that is not in attainment with the applicable NAAQS for ozone.  The ozone nonattainment area that affects Entergy Texas is the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area.  Both Lewis Creek and the Montgomery County Power Station hold all necessary permits for construction and operation and comply with applicable air quality program regulations. Measures enacted to return the area to ozone attainment could make these program regulations more stringent. Entergy will continue to work with state environmental agencies on appropriate methods for assessing attainment and nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS.

Potential SO2Nonattainment

The EPA issued a final rule in June 2010 adopting an SO2 1-hour national ambient air quality standard of 75 parts per billion.  In Entergy’s utility service territory, only St. Bernard Parish and Evangeline Parish in Louisiana are designated as nonattainment. In August 2017 the EPA issued a letter indicating that East Baton Rouge and St. Charles parishes would be designated by December 31, 2020, as monitors were installed to determine compliance. In December 2020 the EPA designated East Baton Rouge, St. Charles, St. James, and West Baton Rouge parishes in Louisiana as attainment/unclassifiable, and, in Texas, Jefferson County as attainment/unclassifiable and Orange County as unclassifiable. Challenges to these final designations must be filed within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register. Entergy continues to monitor this situation.

Hazardous Air Pollutants

The EPA released the final Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule in December 2011, which had a compliance date, with a widely granted one-year extension, of April 2016. The required controls have been installed and are operational at all affected Entergy units. In May 2020 the EPA finalized a rule that finds that it is not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants from electric steam generating units under the provisions of section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act. This is a reversal of the EPA’s previous finding requiring such regulation. The final appropriate and necessary finding does not revise the underlying MATS rule. Several lawsuits have been filed challenging the appropriate and necessary finding. Entergy will continue to monitor this situation.

Cross-State Air Pollution

In March 2005 the EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was intended to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from electric generation plants in order to improve air quality in twenty-nine eastern states. The rule required a combination of capital investment to install pollution control equipment and increased operating costs through the purchase of emission allowances. Entergy began implementation in 2007, including installation of controls at several facilities and the development of an emission allowance procurement strategy.

274

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Based on several court challenges, CAIR and its subsequent versions, now known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), have been remanded to and modified by the EPA on multiple occasions. In September 2016 the EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Starting in 2017 the final rule requires reductions in summer nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Several states, including Arkansas and Texas, filed a challenge to the Update Rule. In September 2019 the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA’s underlying approach to the Update Rule, but determined that it was inconsistent with the Clean Air Act because it failed to include deadlines consistent with downwind states’ deadlines for attainment. The court remanded the rule to the EPA for further consideration, but did not vacate so the rule remains in effect pending the EPA’s further review. In October 2020 the EPA issued its proposal intended to address the D.C. Circuit’s remand. The draft rule proposes to finalize interstate transport obligations for 21 states. For nine states, including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas, the EPA proposes that additional emission reductions are not necessary. For 12 states, however, including Louisiana, the EPA proposes additional emission reductions through proposed reductions in the number of NOx emission allowances allocated to each state. Entergy, through its various trade associations, filed comments on the proposal and will continue to monitor the rulemaking and its potential impact on its facilities in Louisiana. If the October 2020 proposal is finalized, ozone season NOx emissions may become more expensive in Louisiana.

Regional Haze

In June 2005 the EPA issued its final Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) regulations that potentially could result in a requirement to install SO2 and NOx pollution control technology as Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART) to continue operating certain of Entergy’s fossil generation units.  The rule leaves certain CAVR determinations to the states.

In Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) prepared a state implementation plan (SIP) for Arkansas facilities to implement its obligations under the CAVR.   In April 2012 the EPA finalized a decision addressing the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, in which it disapproved a large portion of the Arkansas plan, including the emission limits for NOx and SO2 at White Bluff.  In April 2015 the EPA published a proposed federal implementation plan (FIP) for Arkansas, taking comment on requiring installation of scrubbers and low NOx burners to continue operating both units at the White Bluff plant and both units at the Independence plant and NOx controls to continue operating the Lake Catherine plant. Entergy filed comments by the deadline in August 2015. Among other comments, including opposition to the EPA’s proposed controls on the Independence units, Entergy proposed to meet more stringent SO2 and NOx limits at both White Bluff and Independence within three years of the effective date of the final FIP and to cease the use of coal at the White Bluff units at a later date.

In September 2016 the EPA published the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP. In most respects, the EPA finalized its original proposal but shortened the time for compliance for installation of the NOx controls. The FIP required an emission limitation consistent with SO2 scrubbers at both White Bluff and Independence by October 2021 and NOx controls by April 2018. The EPA declined to adopt Entergy’s proposals related to ceasing coal use as an alternative to SO2 scrubbers for White Bluff SO2 BART. In November 2016, Entergy and other interested parties, including the State of Arkansas, filed petitions for administrative reconsideration and stay at the EPA as well as petitions for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit granted the stay pending settlement discussions and pending the State’s development of a SIP that, if approved by the EPA, would replace the FIP. The state had proposed its replacement SIP in two parts: Part I considers NOx requirements, and Part II considers SO2 requirements. The EPA approved the Part I NOx SIP in January 2018. The Part I SIP requires that Entergy address NOx impacts on visibility via compliance with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ozone-season emission trading program. Arkansas has finalized a Part II SIP which has been approved by the EPA but is currently pending a state court appeal. That appeal has been stayed pending the outcome of a federal court case, which may resolve many of the issues on appeal. The final Part II SIP requires that Entergy achieve SO2 emission reductions via the use of low-sulfur coal at both White Bluff and Independence within three years. The
275

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Part II SIP also requires that Entergy cease to use coal at White Bluff by December 31, 2028 and notes the current planning assumption that Entergy’s Independence units will cease to use coal by December 31, 2030.

In January and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Independence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. In November 2018, following extensive negotiations, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Power entered a proposed settlement resolving those claims and reducing the risk that Entergy Arkansas, as operator of Independence and White Bluff, might be compelled under the Clean Air Act’s regional haze program to install costly emissions control technologies. Consistent with the terms of the settlement and in many cases also the Part II SIP, Entergy Arkansas, along with co-owners, will begin using only low-sulfur coal at Independence and White Bluff by mid-2021; cease to use coal at White Bluff and Independence by the end of 2028 and 2030, respectively; cease operation of the remaining gas unit at Lake Catherine by the end of 2027; reserve the option to develop new generating sources at each plant site; and commit to install or propose to regulators at least 800 MWs of renewable generation by the end of 2027, with at least half installed or proposed by the end of 2022 (which includes two existing Entergy Arkansas projects) and with all qualifying co-owner projects counting toward satisfaction of the obligation. Under the settlement, the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association also waive certain potential existing claims under federal and state environmental law with respect to specified generating plants. The settlement, which formally resolves a complaint filed by the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The EPA, which is allowed to comment on such a settlement agreement, has stated that it has no objections to the settlement. In November 2020 the court denied motions by the Arkansas Attorney General and the Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition to intervene and to stay the proceedings. The proposed intervenors did not appeal the ruling. Still pending before the court is a motion by the plaintiffs to approve the settlement, in support of which Entergy made a filing. The Arkansas Attorney General also filed an application before the APSC in December 2018 seeking projectan investigation into the effects of the settlement. The Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition filed to support the Arkansas Attorney General’s application, and Entergy Arkansas filed a motion to dismiss it. The application remains pending before the APSC. In October 2019 the District Court requested supplemental briefing on several issues prior to addressing the motion to approve the settlement; that briefing concluded in May 2020.

In Louisiana, Entergy has worked with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the EPA to revise the Louisiana SIP for regional haze, which had been disapproved in part in 2012. The LDEQ submitted a revised SIP in February 2017. In May 2017 the EPA proposed to approve a majority of the revisions. In September 2017 the EPA issued a proposed SIP approval for the Nelson plant, requiring an emission limitation consistent with the use of low-sulfur coal, with a compliance date of January 22, 2021. The EPA issued final approval in December 2017. The EPA approval was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In October 2019 the Fifth Circuit affirmed the EPA’s SIP approval. A petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs was denied by the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiffs did not petition for further review by the Supreme Court.

The second planning period (2018-2028) for the regional haze program requires states to examine sources for impacts on visibility and to prepare SIPs by 2021. Entergy received information collection requests from Arkansas and Louisiana requesting an evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of various NOx and SO2 control technologies for Independence, Nelson 6, and Ninemile. Responses to the information requests have been submitted to the respective state agencies.

New and Existing Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In July 2019 the EPA released the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE), which applies only to existing coal-fired electric generating units. The ACE determines that heat rate improvements are the best system of emission reductions and lists six candidate technologies for consideration by states at each coal unit. The rule and associated rulemakings by the EPA replace the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which established
276

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

national emissions performance rates for existing fossil-fuel fired steam electric generating units and combustion turbines. The ACE rule provides states discretion in determining how the best system for emission reductions applies to individual units, including through the consideration of technical feasibility and the remaining useful life of the facility. The ADEQ and the LDEQ have issued information collection requests to Entergy facilities to help the states collect the information needed to determine the best system of emission reductions for each facility. Entergy responded to the requests and will continue to monitor litigation challenging the rule. In January 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated ACE. The court held that ACE relied on an incorrect interpretation of the Clean Air Act that the statute expressly forecloses emission reduction approaches, such as emissions trading and generating shifting, that cannot be applied at and to the individual source. The court remanded ACE to the EPA for further consideration and also vacated the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The vacatur will not be effective until the court issues its mandate which is being held until after disposition of any petitions for rehearing. Entergy is currently reviewing the court’s opinion.

In 2018 the EPA proposed a revision to the new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions that primarily impacts new coal units and, therefore, should not impact Entergy. In January 2021 the EPA finalized a pollutant-specific contribution finding for greenhouse gas emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed electric generating units. The rule establishes a three percent threshold for determining when a pollutant significantly contributes to air pollution and reaffirms the EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act Section 111(b) requires the EPA to make pollutant-specific significant contribution findings before promulgation of a new source performance standard. The EPA did not, however, finalize the new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions and intends to address the 2018 proposal in a future action.

Potential Legislative, Regulatory, and Judicial Developments

In addition to the specific instances described above, there are a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives concerning air emissions, as well as other media, that are under consideration at the federal, state, and local level.  Because of the nature of Entergy’s business, the imposition of any of these initiatives could affect Entergy’s operations.  Entergy continues to monitor these initiatives and activities in order to analyze their potential operational and cost recoveryimplications.  These initiatives include:

designation by the EPA and state environmental agencies of areas that are not in attainment with national ambient air quality standards;
introduction of bills in Congress and development of regulations by the EPA proposing further limits on NOx, SO2, mercury, and carbon dioxide and other air emissions.  New legislation or regulations applicable to stationary sources could take the form of market-based cap-and-trade programs, direct requirements for the installation of air emission controls onto air emission sources, or other or combined regulatory programs;
efforts in Congress or at the EPA to establish a federal carbon dioxide emission tax, control structure, or unit performance standards;
revisions to the estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon and its use for regulatory impact analysis of federal laws and regulations;
implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative by several states in the northeastern United States and similar actions in other regions of the United States;
efforts on the local, state, and federal level to codify renewable portfolio standards, clean energy standards, or a similar mechanism requiring utilities to produce or purchase a certain percentage of their power from defined renewable energy sources or energy sources with lower emissions;
efforts to develop more stringent state water quality standards, effluent limitations for Entergy’s industry sector, stormwater runoff control regulations, and cooling water intake structure requirements;
efforts to restrict the previously-approved continued use of oil-filled equipment containing certain levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
efforts by certain external groups to encourage reporting and disclosure of environmental, social, and governance risk;
277

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

the listing of additional species as threatened or endangered, the protection of critical habitat for these species, and developments in the legal protection of eagles and migratory birds;
the regulation of the management, disposal, and beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals; and
the regulation of the management and disposal and recycling of equipment associated with renewable and clean energy sources such as used solar panels, wind turbine blades, hydrogen usage, or battery storage.

Entergy continues to support national legislation that would increase planning certainty for electric utilities while addressing carbon dioxide emissions in an economy-wide, responsible, and flexible manner.  By virtue of its proportionally large investment in low-emitting generation technologies, Entergy has a low overall carbon dioxide emission “intensity,” or rate of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt-hour of electricity generated.  In anticipation of the imposition of carbon dioxide emission limits on the electric industry, Entergy initiated actions designed to reduce its exposure to potential new governmental requirements related to carbon dioxide emissions.  These voluntary actions included a formal program to stabilize owned power plant carbon dioxide emissions at 2000 levels through 2005, and Entergy succeeded in reducing emissions below 2000 levels. In 2006, Entergy started including emissions from controllable power purchases in addition to its ownership share of generation and established a second formal voluntary program to stabilize power plant carbon dioxide emissions and emissions from controllable power purchases, cumulatively over the period, at 20% below 2000 levels through 2010.  In 2011, Entergy extended this commitment through 2020.  In 2020, Entergy succeeded in achieving its initial climate commitment to reduce carbon dioxide cumulative emissions by 20% from 2000 levels. Total carbon dioxide emissions representing Entergy’s ownership share of power plants and controllable power purchases in the United States were approximately 39.1 million tons in 2020 and 40.7 million tons in 2019. Since its original commitment in 2001, Entergy’s cumulative emissions are approximately 7.6% below its 2020 goal.

Entergy voluntarily conducted a five-year period. climate scenario analysis and published a comprehensive report in March 2019. The report follows the framework and recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Disclosures, describing climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Scenario analyses resulted in Entergy developing and publishing a new goal of reducing the Utility’s emission rate by 50 percent from 2000 levels by 2030. In September 2020, Entergy committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, while continuing its commitment to grid reliability and affordability for customers. In December 2020, Entergy published a report regarding this long-term commitment that describes its approach and technology point-of-view. Technology research and development, innovation, and advancement are critical to Entergy’s ability to meet this climate commitment.

Entergy participates in the M.J. Bradley & Associates’ Annual Benchmarking Air Emissions Report, an annual analysis of the 100 largest U.S. electric power producers. The report is available on the M.J. Bradley website. Entergy’s annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory is also third-party verified, and that certification is made available on the American Carbon Registry website. Entergy participates annually in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and in 2020 was listed on the North American Index. Entergy has been listed on the World or North American Index, or both, for nineteen consecutive years. Entergy also participated in the 2020 CDP and CDP Water evaluations, receiving a ‘B’ for both responses.

Clean Water Act

The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act) provide the statutory basis for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program, section 402, and the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States.  The Clean Water Act requires virtually all discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to be permitted.  Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act regulates cooling water intake structures, section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a water quality certification from the state in support of certain federal actions and approvals, and section 404 regulates the dredge and fill of waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands.

278

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines

The 2015 Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) rule required, among other things, that there be no discharge of bottom ash transport water. In October 2020 the EPA issued its final rule revision on bottom ash transport water allowing the discharge of up to 10% system volume for certain purge waters, including storm events and non-routine operations. The final rule requires compliance as soon as possible beginning October 31, 2021, but no later than December 31, 2025. Several challenges to the final rule have been filed. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously vacated and remanded the provisions of the rule related to legacy wastewater and leachate, which the EPA plans to address in a separate rulemaking. Despite the final rule and pending challenges, Entergy is implementing projects at its White Bluff and Independence plants to convert to zero-discharge systems to comply with the ELG rule and the coal combustion residuals restrictions on impoundments. Additionally, the Nelson Unit 6 facility is implementing operational and maintenance measures to minimize the potential for discharge of bottom ash transport water from the existing bottom ash handling system at the site, and is reviewing the effectiveness of these changes for compliance with the requirements of the October 2020 final rule.

Federal Jurisdiction of Waters of the United States

In February 2019 the EPA published its proposed revised definition of Waters of the United States, which proposes to narrow the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, as compared to a 2015 definition which had been stayed by several federal courts. The final rule was released in January 2020 and effective in June 2020. In October 2019 the EPA repealed the 2015 rule and re-codified the pre-existing regulations. That rule was effective late December 2019. Numerous challenges have been filed against both rules.

Groundwater at Certain Nuclear Sites

The NRC requires nuclear power plants to monitor and report regularly the presence of radioactive material in the environment.  Entergy joined other nuclear utilities and the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2006 to develop a voluntary groundwater monitoring and protection program.  This initiative began after detection of very low levels of radioactive material, primarily tritium, in groundwater at several plants in the United States.  Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that occurs naturally and is also a byproduct of nuclear plant operations.  In addition to tritium, other radionuclides have been found in site groundwater at nuclear plants.

As part of the groundwater monitoring and protection program, Entergy has: (1) performed reviews of plant groundwater characteristics (hydrology) and historical records of past events on site that may have potentially impacted groundwater; (2) implemented fleet procedures on how to handle events that could impact groundwater; and (3) installed groundwater monitoring wells and began periodic sampling.  The program also includes protocols for notifying local officials if contamination is found.  To date, radionuclides such as tritium have been detected at Arkansas Nuclear One, Indian Point, Palisades, Grand Gulf, and River Bend.  Each of these sites has installed groundwater monitoring wells and implemented a program for testing groundwater at the sites for the presence of tritium and other radionuclides.  Based on current information, the concentrations and locations of radionuclides detected at these plants pose no threat to public health or safety, but each site continues to evaluate the results from its groundwater monitoring program.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), authorizes the EPA to mandate clean-up by, or to collect reimbursement of clean-up costs from, owners or operators of sites at which hazardous substances may be or have been released.  Certain private parties also may use CERCLA to recover response costs.  Parties that transported hazardous substances to these sites or arranged for the disposal of the substances are also deemed liable by CERCLA.  CERCLA has been interpreted to impose strict, joint, and several liability on responsible parties.  Many states have adopted programs similar to CERCLA.  Entergy subsidiaries in the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses have sent waste materials to various
279

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

disposal sites over the years, and releases have occurred at Entergy facilities including nuclear facilities that have been or will be sold to decommissioning companies.  In addition, environmental laws now regulate certain of Entergy’s operating procedures and maintenance practices that historically were not subject to regulation.  Some disposal sites used by Entergy subsidiaries have been the subject of governmental action under CERCLA or similar state programs, resulting in site clean-up activities.  Entergy subsidiaries have participated to various degrees in accordance with their respective potential liabilities in such site clean-ups and have developed experience with clean-up costs.  The affected Entergy subsidiaries have established provisions for the liabilities for such environmental clean-up and restoration activities.  Details of potentially material CERCLA and similar state program liabilities are discussed in the “Other Environmental Matters” section below.

Coal Combustion Residuals

In June 2010 the EPA issued a proposed rule on coal combustion residuals (CCRs) that contained two primary regulatory options: (1) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or received (including stored) in surface impoundments as so-called “special wastes” under the hazardous waste program of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C; or (2) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments as non-hazardous wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA.  Under both options, CCRs that are beneficially reused in certain processes would remain excluded from hazardous waste regulation. In April 2015 the EPA published the final CCR rule with the material being regulated under the second scenario presented above - as non-hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA Subtitle D.

The final regulations create new compliance requirements including modified storage, new notification and reporting practices, product disposal considerations, and CCR unit closure criteria.  Entergy believes that on-site disposal options will be available at its facilities, to the extent needed for CCR that cannot be transferred for beneficial reuse. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy has recorded asset retirement obligations related to CCR management of $20.1 million.

In December 2016 the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) was signed into law, which authorizes states to regulate coal ash rather than leaving primary enforcement to citizen suit actions. States may submit to the EPA proposals for a permit program.

Pursuant to the EPA Rule, Entergy operates groundwater monitoring systems surrounding its coal combustion residual landfills located at White Bluff, Independence, and Nelson. Monitoring to date has detected concentrations of certain listed constituents in the area, but has not indicated that these constituents originated at the active landfill cells. Reporting has occurred as required, and detection monitoring will continue as the rule requires. In late-2017, Entergy determined that certain in-ground wastewater treatment system recycle ponds at its White Bluff and Independence facilities require management under the new EPA regulations. Consequently, in order to move away from using the recycle ponds, White Bluff and Independence each have installed a new permanent bottom ash handling system that does not fall under the CCR rule. As of November 2020, both sites are operating the new system and no longer are sending waste to the recycle ponds. Each site has commenced closure of one of its two recycle ponds, with the remaining pond being held in reserve during initial operation of the new bottom ash handling system. Closure of the remaining recycle pond at each site will commence as soon as possible, but no later than April 11, 2021, which is the deadline under the finalized CCR rule to commence closure of any unlined recycle ponds. Any potential requirements for corrective action or operational changes under the new CCR rule continue to be assessed. Notably, ongoing litigation has resulted in the EPA’s continuing review of the rule. Consequently, the nature and cost of additional corrective action requirements may depend, in part, on the outcome of the EPA’s review.

280

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Environmental Matters

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas

Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, currently is involved in the second phase of the remedial investigation of the Lake Charles Service Center site, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  A manufactured gas plant (MGP) is believed to have operated at this site from approximately 1916 to 1931.  Coal tar, a by-product of the distillation process employed at MGPs, apparently was routed to a portion of the property for disposal.  The same area also has been used as a landfill.  In 1999, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. signed a second administrative consent order with the EPA to perform a removal action at the site.  Removal actions addressed contaminated source material, soil, and sediment and included capping certain soil on and off-site. In 2002 approximately 7,400 tons of contaminated soil and debris were excavated and disposed of from an area within the service center.  In 2003 a cap was constructed over the remedial area to prevent the migration of contamination to the surface.  In August 2010,2005 an administrative order was issued by the EPA requiring that a 10-year groundwater study be conducted at this site.  The groundwater monitoring study commenced in January 2006.  The EPA released the second Five Year Review in 2015. In that review, the EPA indicated that the remediation technique was insufficient and that Entergy would need to utilize other remediation technologies on the site. In July 2015, Entergy submitted a Focused Feasibility Study to the EPA outlining the potential remedies and suggesting installation of the new remedial method, a waterloo barrier. The estimated cost for this remedy is approximately $2 million, to be allocated between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas.  In early 2017 the EPA indicated that the waterloo barrier may not be necessary and requested revisions to the Focused Feasibility Study. The EPA released the third Five Year Review in late-2019 confirming that a new remedial method is not necessary but requiring continuation of the current groundwater monitoring. The site’s remedy includes monitored natural attenuation of groundwater, and institutional controls to restrict groundwater and land use. The EPA has determined that no additional actions are needed for the remedy to be protective over the long-term, and the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) notified Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas that the TCEQ believes those entities are potentially responsible parties (PRPs) concerning contamination existing at the San Angelo Electric Service Company (SESCO) facility in San Angelo, Texas.  The facility operated as a transformer repair and scrapping facility from the 1930s until 2003.  Both soil and groundwater contamination existed at the site.  Entergy subsidiaries sent transformers to this facility.  Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy Texas responded to an information request from the TCEQ.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas joined a group of PRPs responding to site conditions in cooperation with the State of Texas, creating cost allocation models based on review of SESCO documents and employee interviews, and investigating contribution actions against other PRPs.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas have agreed to contribute to the remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at the site in a measure proportionate to those companies’ involvement at the site.  Current estimates, although variable depending on ultimate remediation design and performance, indicate that Entergy’s total share of remediation costs likely will be approximately $1.5 million to $2 million.  Groundwater monitoring wells at the site were plugged and abandoned in December 2019 following receipt of a certificate of completion issued by the TCEQ. Site decommissioning activities are complete and final disposition of the property will be determined at a later time.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Texas

The EPA notified Entergy that the EPA believes Entergy is a PRP concerning PCB contamination at the F.J. Doyle Salvage facility in Leonard, Texas. The facility operated as a scrap salvage business during the 1970s to the 1990s. In May 2018 the EPA investigated the site surface and sub-surface soils and, in November 2018 the EPA conducted a removal action, including disposal of PCB contaminated soils. Entergy responded to the EPA’s information requests in May and July 2019. In November 2020 the EPA sent Entergy and other PRPs a demand
281

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

letter seeking reimbursement for response costs totaling $4 million expended at the site. The demand letter is being evaluated and liability and PRP allocation of response costs are yet to be determined.

Entergy Texas

In December 2016 a transformer inside the Hartburg, Texas Substation had an internal fault resulting in a release of approximately 15,000 gallons of non-PCB mineral oil. Cleanup ensued immediately; however, rain caused much of the oil to spread across the substation yard and into a nearby wetland. The TCEQ and the National Response Center were immediately notified, and the TCEQ responded to the site approximately two hours after the cleanup was initiated. The remediation liability is estimated at $2.2 million; however, this number could fluctuate depending on the remediation extent and wetland mitigation requirements. In July 2017, Entergy entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program with the TCEQ. In November 2017, additional soil sampling was completed in the wetland area and, in February 2018, a site summary report of findings was submitted to the TCEQ. The TCEQ responded in June 2018 and requested an ecological exclusion criteria checklist/Tier II screening-level ecological risk assessment, and additional site assessment, additional soil samples, groundwater samples, and some additional diagrams and maps. In October 2018, Entergy submitted the requested information to the TCEQ. In January 2019 the TCEQ responded with another request for information. In March 2019, Entergy submitted the requested information to the TCEQ. In August 2019 the TCEQ responded with a request for additional information including an Affected Property Assessment Report (APAR) and water well survey. The TCEQ has agreed that the necessity of the water well survey is dependent on the results of the groundwater resampling that will occur. Groundwater sampling was completed in December 2019 and results were submitted to the TCEQ for review. Based on the groundwater sampling results, the TCEQ confirmed in February 2020 that a water well survey is not necessary and requested the APAR and an Ecological Risk Assessment by August 2020. Due to COVID-19 delays, the TCEQ extended the APAR and Ecological Risk Assessment submittal dates to December 2020, which Entergy timely met.

Litigation

Entergy uses legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against it, but certain states in which Entergy operates have proven to be unusually litigious environments.  Judges and juries in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases.  The litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk to Entergy.

Asbestos Litigation(Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of this litigation.

Employment and Labor-related Proceedings (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of these proceedings.

282

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Human Capital

Employees

Employees are an integral part of Entergy’s commitment to serving customers.  As of December 31, 2020, Entergy subsidiaries employed 13,400 people.

Utility:
Entergy Arkansas1,244 
Entergy Louisiana1,654 
Entergy Mississippi750 
Entergy New Orleans303 
Entergy Texas658 
System Energy— 
Entergy Operations3,529 
Entergy Services3,859 
Entergy Nuclear Operations1,356 
Other subsidiaries47 
Total Entergy13,400 

Approximately 3,900 employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Utility Workers Union of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Government Security Officers of America, and the International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America.

Below is the breakdown of Entergy’s employees by gender and race/ethnicity:

Gender (%)20202019
Female2120
Male7980
100100


Race/Ethnicity (%)20202019
White7879
Black/African American1515
Hispanic/Latino32
Asian22
Other22
100100

Entergy’s Approach to Human Resources

Entergy’s people and culture enable its success; that is why acquiring, retaining, and developing talent are important components of Entergy’s human resources strategy. Entergy focuses on an approach that includes, among other things, governance and oversight; safety; organizational health, including diversity, inclusion and belonging; and talent management.

283

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Governance and Oversight

Ensuring that workplace processes support the desired culture and strategy begins with the Board of Directors and the Office of the Chief Executive. The Personnel Committee establishes priorities and reviews performance on a range of topics. It oversees Entergy’s incentive plan design and administers its executive compensation plans to incentivize the behaviors and outcomes that support achievement of Entergy’s corporate objectives. Annually, it reviews executive performance, development and succession plans to align a high performing executive team with Entergy’s priorities. The Personnel Committee also oversees Entergy’s performance through regular briefings on a wide variety of human resources topics including Entergy’s safety culture and performance; organizational health; and diversity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives and performance.

Other committees of the Board oversee other key aspects of Entergy’s culture. For example, the Audit Committee reviews reports on ethics and compliance training and performance, as well as regular reports on calls made to Entergy’s ethics line and related investigations. To maximize the sharing of information and facilitate the participation of all Board members in these discussions, the Board schedules its regular committee meetings in a manner such that all directors can attend.

The Office of the Chief Executive, which includes the Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, ensures annual business plans are designed to support Entergy’s talent objectives, reviews workforce-related metrics, and regularly discusses the development, succession planning, and performance of their direct reports and other company officers.

Safety

Entergy’s safety objective is: Everyone Safe. All Day. Every Day. While the COVID-19 pandemic and historical hurricane season presented significant challenges, Entergy’s safety strategy and commitment to excellence showed results in 2020. Entergy employees achieved a total recordable incident rate of 0.40 in 2020 compared to 0.56 in 2019 and 0.48 in 2018. The recordable incident rate equals the number of recordable incidents per 100 full-time equivalents. Recordable incidents include fatalities, lost-time accidents, restricted-duty accidents, and medical attentions and is not inclusive of potential work-related COVID-19 cases. This marked improvement in total recordable incident rate placed Entergy in top-decile in safety performance when benchmarked amongst peers within the Edison Electric Institute.

Organizational Health, including Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging

Entergy believes that organizational health fosters an engaged and productive culture that positions Entergy to deliver sustainable value to its stakeholders. Entergy measures its progress through an organizational health survey coordinated by an external third party. Since initially administering the survey in 2014, Entergy improved from an initial score of 49 (fourth quartile) to a score in 2020 of 72 (near top quartile). In addition to significantly improved scores, initial employee participation of 66 percent in 2014 rose to and remains at 90 percent in 2018-2020.

Entergy believes that a culture focused on diversity, inclusion, and belonging drives foundational engagement. Entergy is committed to developing and retaining a workforce that reflects the rich diversity of the communities it serves. In 2019, Entergy embarked on a three-year phased approach to enhance inclusion for individuals and teams. Among other actions, the primary focus of its 2020 actions was taking a stand against social injustice, reinforcing expectations, training and leading by example, starting at the top of the organization and cascading through management ranks.

284

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Talent Management

Entergy’s focus on talent management is organized in three areas: developing and attracting a diverse pool of talent, equipping its leaders to develop the organization, and building premier utility capability through employee performance management and succession programs. Entergy believes that developing a diverse pool of local talent equipped with the skills needed, today and in the future, and reflecting the communities Entergy serves will give it a long-term competitive advantage. The focus of Entergy’s leadership development programs is to equip managers with the skills needed to effectively develop their teams and improve the leader-employee relationship. Entergy’s talent development infrastructure, which includes a combination of business function-specific and enterprise-wide learning and development programs, is designed to ensure Entergy has qualified staff with the skills, experiences, and behaviors needed to perform today and prepare for the future. Entergy strives to achieve its strategic priorities by aligning and enhancing team and individual performance with business objectives, effectively deploying talent through succession planning, and managing workforce transitions.

Availability of SEC filings and other information on Entergy’s website

Entergy electronically files reports with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxies, and amendments to such reports. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of the reports that Entergy files with the SEC can be obtained at the SEC’s website.

Entergy uses its website, http://www.entergy.com, as a routine channel for distribution of important information, including news releases, analyst presentations and financial information.  Filings made with the SEC are posted and available without charge on Entergy’s website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.  These filings include annual and quarterly reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q (including related filings in Inline XBRL format) and current reports on Form 8-K; proxy statements; and any amendments to those reports or statements.  All such postings and filings are available on Entergy’s Investor Relations website free of charge.  Entergy is providing the address to its internet site solely for the information of investors and does not intend the address to be an active link.  The contents of the website are not incorporated into this report.


285

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

RISK FACTORS

See “RISK FACTOR SUMMARY” in Part I Item 1 for a summary of Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ risk factors.

Investors should review carefully the following risk factors and the other information in this Form 10-K.  The risks that Entergy faces are not limited to those in this section.  There may be additional risks and uncertainties (either currently unknown or not currently believed to be material) that could adversely affect Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.  See “FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION.”

Utility Regulatory Risks

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and responsive measures taken on Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ business, results of operations, and financial condition are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

In December 2019 a novel strain of coronavirus was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan, China. Since then, COVID-19 has spread throughout most countries in the world, including the United States. Public health officials in the United States have both recommended and mandated wearing of masks, precautions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including prohibitions on congregating in heavily-populated areas, mandated closure or limitations on the functions of non-essential business, and shelter-in-place orders or similar measures, including throughout Entergy’s service areas. While some of these mitigation measures have been lifted, it is unclear how long certain forms of mitigation measures will remain in place, whether they will be reinstated in the future, and how they will ultimately impact the general economy, Entergy’s customers, and its operations.

Entergy and its Utility operating companies have experienced a decline in commercial and industrial sales and an increase in arrearages and bad debt expense due to non-payment by customers, and expect such reduced levels of sales and increased arrearages and bad debt expense to continue, the extent and duration of which management cannot predict. The Utility operating companies temporarily suspended disconnecting customers for non-payment of bills, and the suspension remains in place at Entergy Arkansas, has been re-instituted at Entergy New Orleans, and could be re-instituted at the other Utility operating companies should their regulators mandate. While they are working with regulators to ensure ultimate recovery for those and other COVID-19 related costs, the amount, method, and timing of such recovery is unknown. Entergy and its Registrant Subsidiaries also could experience, and in some cases have experienced, among other challenges, supply chain, vendor, and contractor disruptions; delays in completion of capital or other construction projects, maintenance, and other operations activities, including prolonged or delayed outages; delays in regulatory proceedings; workforce availability, health or safety issues; increased storm recovery costs; increased cybersecurity risks as a result of many employees telecommuting; increased late or uncollectible customer payments; volatility in the credit or capital markets (and any related increased cost of capital or any inability to access the capital markets or draw on available credit facilities); or other adverse impacts on their ability to execute on business strategies and initiatives.

A sustained or further economic decline could adversely impact Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity and cash flows, including through declining sales, reduced revenues, delays in receipts of customer payments, or increased bad debt expense. The Utility operating companies also may experience regulatory outcomes that require them to postpone planned investment and otherwise reduce costs due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their customers. In addition, if the COVID-19 pandemic continues to create disruptions or turmoil in the credit or financial markets, or adversely impacts Entergy’s credit metrics or ratings, such developments could adversely affect its ability to access capital on favorable terms and continue to meet its
286

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

liquidity needs, or cause a decrease in the value of its defined benefit pension trust funds, as well as its nuclear decommissioning trust funds, all of which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

Entergy cannot predict the extent or duration of the outbreak, the impact of new variants of COVID-19, the timing, availability, distribution or effectiveness of a vaccine, anti-viral or other treatments for COVID-19, governmental responsive measures, or the extent of the effects or ultimate impacts on the global, national or local economy, the capital markets, or its customers, suppliers, operations, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

The terms and conditions of service, including electric and gas rates, of the Utility operating companies and System Energy are determined through regulatory approval proceedings that can be lengthy and subject to appeal, potentially resulting in delays in effecting rate changes, lengthy litigation and uncertainty as to ultimate results.

The Utility operating companies are regulated on a cost-of-service and rate of return basis and are subject to statutes and regulatory commission rules and procedures. The rates that the Utility operating companies and System Energy charge reflect their capital expenditures, operations and maintenance costs, allowed rates of return, financing costs, and related costs of service.  These rates significantly influence the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy and each of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.  These rates are determined in regulatory proceedings and are subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment, including adjustment upon the initiative of a regulator or affected stakeholders.

In addition, regulators may initiate proceedings to investigate the prudence of costs in the Utility operating companies’ and System Energy’s base rates and examine, among other things, the reasonableness or prudence of the companies’ operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures (including storm costs and costs associated with capital projects), allowed rates of return and rate base, proposed resource acquisitions, and previously incurred capital expenditures that the operating companies seek to place in rates.  The regulators may disallow costs subject to their jurisdiction found not to have been prudently incurred or found not to have been incurred in compliance with applicable tariffs, creating some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs.  Regulatory proceedings relating to rates and other matters typically involve multiple parties seeking to limit or reduce rates.  Traditional base rate proceedings, as opposed to formula rate plans, generally have long timelines, are primarily based on historical costs, and may or may not be limited in scope or duration by statute. The length of these base rate proceedings can cause the Utility operating companies and System Energy to experience regulatory lag in recovering costs through rates, such that the Utility operating companies may not fully recover all costs during the rate effective period and the Utility operating companies may, therefore, earn less than their allowed returns.  Decisions are typically subject to appeal, potentially leading to additional uncertainty associated with rate case proceedings.

The Utility operating companies have large customer and stakeholder bases and, as a result, could be the subject of public criticism or adverse publicity focused on issues including the operation of their assets and infrastructure or the quality of their service. Criticism or adverse publicity of this nature could render legislatures and other governing bodies, public service commissions and other regulatory authorities, and government officials less likely to view the applicable operating company in a favorable light and could potentially negatively affect legislative or regulatory processes or outcomes, as well as lead to increased regulatory oversight or more stringent legislative or regulatory requirements.

The base rates of Entergy Texas are established largely in traditional base rate case proceedings.Between base rate proceedings, Entergy Texas has available rate riders to recover the revenue requirements associated with certain incremental costs.These riders include a distribution cost recovery factor rider mechanism for the recovery of distribution-related capital investment and certain non-fuel MISO charges, a transmission cost recovery factor rider mechanism for the recovery of transmission-related capital investments, a generation cost recovery rider mechanism for the recovery of generation-related capital investments, and a fixed fuel factor mechanism for the recovery of MISO fuel and energy-related costs.Entergy Texas also is required to make a filing every three years,
287

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

at a minimum, reconciling its fuel and purchased power costs and fuel factor revenues.In the course of this reconciliation, the PUCT determines whether eligible fuel and fuel-related expenses and revenues are necessary and reasonable, and makes a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts for the reconciliation period.Entergy Texas also is required to file full base rate case proceedings every four years and within eighteen months of utilizing its generation cost recovery rider for investments above $200 million.

Between base rate cases, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi are able to adjust base rates annually through formula rate plans that utilize a forward test year (Entergy Arkansas) or forward-looking features (Entergy Mississippi).In response to Entergy Arkansas’s application for a general change in rates in 2015, the APSC approved the formula rate plan tariff proposed by Entergy Arkansas including its use of a projected year test period and an initial five-year term.The initial five-year term expires in 2021. Entergy Arkansas has requested APSC approval of the extension of the formula rate plan tariff for an additional five years through 2026.If Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan were terminated or not extended beyond the initial term, Entergy Arkansas could file an application for a general change in rates that may include a request for continued regulation under a formula rate review mechanism.If Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan is terminated, it would revert to the more traditional rate case environment or seek approval of a new formula rate plan.Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi recover fuel and purchased energy and certain non-fuel costs through other APSC-approved and MPSC-approved tariffs, respectively.

Entergy Louisiana historically sets electric base rates annually through a formula rate plan using an historic test year.The form of the formula rate plan, on a combined basis, was approved in connection with the business combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and largely followed the formula rate plans that were approved by the LPSC staffin connection with the full electric base rate cases filed by those companies in February 2013.The formula rate plan was most recently extended through the test year 2019; certain modifications were made in that extension, including a decrease to the allowed return on equity and intervenorsthe addition of a transmission cost recovery mechanism.The formula rate plan continues to include exceptions from the rate cap and sharing requirements for certain large capital investment projects, including acquisition or construction of generating facilities and purchase power agreements approved by the LPSC and as noted, for certain transmission investment, among other items.MISO fuel and energy-related costs are recoverable in Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause.Entergy Louisiana has a pending request to extend its formula rate plan with certain modifications, including implementation of a distribution investment recovery mechanism and use of end of period rate base.In the event that the electric formula rate plan is not renewed or extended, Entergy Louisiana would revert to the more traditional rate case environment.

Entergy New Orleans previously operated under a formula rate plan that ended with the 2011 test year.Based on a settlement agreement approved by the City Council, with limited exceptions, the base rates of Entergy New Orleans were frozen until rates were implemented in connection with the base rate case filed testimony. by Entergy New Orleans in 2018.In November 2019 the City Council issued a resolution resolving the rate case, with rates to become effective retroactive to August 2019.The LPSC staff (1)resolution allows Entergy New Orleans to implement a three-year formula rate plan, beginning with the 2019 test year as adjusted for forward-looking known and measurable changes.In November 2020 the City Council issued a resolution approving a settlement of the 2018 rate case.As part of this settlement, Entergy New Orleans agreed to postpone the filing of its first test year formula rate plan to 2021 and, in return, to be provided an additional test year for the three-year cycle.See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion.

The rates of System Energy are established by the FERC, and the costs allowed to be charged pursuant to these rates are, in turn, passed through to the participating Utility operating companies through the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which has monthly billings that reflect the current operating costs of, and investment in, Grand Gulf. Retail regulators and other parties may seek to initiate proceedings at FERC to investigate the prudence of costs included in the rates charged under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and examine, among other things, the
288

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

reasonableness or prudence of the operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures, allowed rates of return and rate base, and previously incurred capital expenditures. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is currently the subject of several litigation proceedings at the FERC, including a challenge with respect to System Energy’s uncertain tax positions, sale leaseback arrangement, authorized return on equity and capital structure, and a separate request for FERC to initiate a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Entergy cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings nor can it predict whether any outcome could have a material effect on Entergy’s or System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the proceedings. System Energy has received FERC acceptance for billing protocols to provide retail regulators with information regarding rates billed under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

The Utility operating companies and System Energy, and the energy industry as a whole, have experienced a period of rising costs and investments, and an upward trend in spending, especially with respect to infrastructure investments, which is likely to continue in the foreseeable future and could result in more frequent rate cases and requests for, and the continuation of, cost recovery mechanisms.  For information regarding rate case proceedings and formula rate plans applicable to the Utility operating companies, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

Changes to state or federal legislation or regulation affecting electric generation, electric and natural gas transmission, distribution, and related activities could adversely affect Entergy and the Utility operating companies’ financial position, results of operations, or cash flows and their utility businesses.

If legislative and regulatory structures evolve in a manner that erodes the Utility operating companies’ exclusive rights to serve their regulated customers, they could lose customers and sales and their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially affected. Additionally, technological advances in energy efficiency and distributed energy resources are reducing the costs of these technologies and together with ongoing state and federal subsidies, the increasing penetration of these technologies could result in reduced sales by the Utility operating companies. Such loss of sales could put upward pressure on rates, resulting in adverse regulatory actions to mitigate such effects on rates. Entergy and the Utility operating companies cannot predict if or when they may be subject to changes in legislation or regulation, or the extent and timing of reductions of the cost of distributed energy resources, nor can they predict the impact of these changes on their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The Utility operating companies recover fuel, purchased power, and associated costs through rate mechanisms that are subject to risks of delay or disallowance in regulatory proceedings.

The Utility operating companies recover their fuel, purchased power, and associated costs from their customers through rate mechanisms subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment.  Because regulatory review can result in the disallowance of incurred costs found not to have been prudently incurred, including the cost of replacement power purchased when generators experience outages or when planned outages are extended, with the possibility of refunds to ratepayers, there exists some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs, particularly when there are substantial or sudden increases in such costs.  Regulators also may initiate proceedings to investigate the continued usage or the adequacy and operation of the fuel and purchased power recovery clauses of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, there can be no assurance that existing recovery mechanisms will remain unchanged or in effect at all.

The Utility operating companies’ cash flows can be negatively affected by the time delays between when gas, power, or other commodities are purchased and the ultimate recovery from customers of the costs in rates.  On occasion, when the level of incurred costs for fuel and purchased power rises very dramatically, some of the Utility operating companies may agree to defer recovery of a portion of that period’s fuel and purchased power costs for recovery at a later date, which could increase the near-term working capital and borrowing requirements of those companies.  For a description of fuel and purchased power recovery mechanisms and information regarding the regulatory proceedings for fuel and purchased power costs recovery, see Note 2 to the financial statements.
289

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


There remains uncertainty regarding the effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies.

The Utility operating companies historically engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating resources and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that had been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement terminated in its entirety on August 31, 2016.

There remains uncertainty regarding the long-term effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies because of the significant effect of the agreement on the generation and transmission functions of the Utility operating companies and the significant period of time (over 30 years) that it was prudenthad been in existence. In the absence of the System Agreement, there remains uncertainty around the effectiveness of governance processes and the potential absence of federal authority to moveresolve certain issues among the projectUtility operating companies and their retail regulators.

In addition, although the System Agreement terminated in its entirety in August 2016, there are a few outstanding System Agreement proceedings at the FERC and at the D.C. Circuit that may require future adjustments, including challenges to the level and timing of payments made by Entergy Arkansas under the System Agreement. The outcome and timing of these FERC proceedings and resulting recovery and impact on rates cannot be predicted at this time.

For further information regarding the regulatory proceedings relating to the System Agreement, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO RTO tariff and their participation in the MISO RTO’s wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

On December 19, 2013, the Utility operating companies integrated into the MISO RTO. MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a bilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets. MISO tariff rules and system conditions, including transmission congestion, could affect the Utility operating companies’ ability to sell capacity, energy, and/or ancillary services in certain regions and/or the economic value of such sales, or the cost of serving the Utility operating companies’ respective loads, and MISO market rules may change in ways that cause additional risk.

The Utility operating companies participate in the MISO regional transmission planning process and are subject to risks associated with planning decisions that MISO makes in the exercise of control over the planning of the Utility operating companies’ transmission assets that are under MISO’s functional control. The Utility operating companies pay transmission rates that reflect the cost of transmission projects that the Utility operating companies do not own, which could increase cash or financing needs. In addition to the cash and financing-related risks arising from long-term suspensionthe potential additional cost allocation to cancellationthe Utility operating companies from transmission projects of others, there is a risk that the Utility operating companies’ business and financial position could be harmed as a result of lost investment opportunities and other effects that flow from an increased number of competitive projects being approved and constructed that are interconnected with their transmission systems. Further, the terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets, the
290

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

allocation of transmission upgrade costs, the MISO-wide allowed base rate of return on equity, and any required MISO-related charges and credits are subject to regulation by the FERC. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO tariff and their participation in the MISO wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements. In addition, orders from each of the Utility operating companies’ respective retail regulators generally require that the Utility operating companies make periodic filings, or generally allow the retail regulator to direct the making of such filings, setting forth the results of analysis of the costs and benefits realized from MISO membership as well as the projected costs and benefits of continued membership in MISO and/or requesting approval of their continued membership in MISO. These filings have been submitted periodically by each of the Utility operating companies as required by their respective retail regulators, and the outcome of the resulting proceedings may affect the Utility operating companies’ continued membership in MISO.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred as a result of severe weather (including from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta), or the impact on customer bills of permitted storm cost recovery, could have material effects on Entergy and its Utility operating companies.

Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition can be materially affected by the destructive effects of severe weather.  Severe weather can also result in significant outages for the customers of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, reduced revenues for the Utility operating companies during the period of the outages.  A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred or revenues lost as a result of severe weather could have a material effect on Entergy and those Utility operating companies affected by severe weather. In addition, the recovery of major storm restoration costs from customers could effectively limit our ability to make planned capital or other investments due to the impact of such storm cost recovery on customer bills.

In August and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, including New Orleans, Texas, and to a lesser extent, in Arkansas and Mississippi. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of the electrical system damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $2.4 billion. Because Entergy has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

Nuclear Operating, Shutdown, and Regulatory Risks

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy)

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities must consistently operate their nuclear power plants at high capacity factors in order to be successful, and lower capacity factors could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Nuclear capacity factors significantly affect the results of operations of certain Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  Nuclear plant operations involve substantial fixed operating
291

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

costs.  Consequently, to be successful, a plant owner must consistently operate its nuclear power plants at high capacity factors, consistent with safety requirements. For the Utility operating companies that own nuclear plants, lower capacity factors can increase production costs by requiring the affected companies to generate additional energy, sometimes at higher costs, from their owned or contractually controlled facilities or purchase additional energy in the spot or forward markets in order to satisfy their supply needs.  For the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants, lower capacity factors directly affect revenues and cash flow from operations.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward sales are comprised of various hedge products, many of which have some degree of operational-contingent price risk. Certain unit-contingent contracts guarantee specified minimum capacity factors. In the event plants with these contracts were operating below the guaranteed capacity factors, Entergy would be subject to price risk for the undelivered power.  Further, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear forward sales contracts can also be on a firm LD basis, which subjects Entergy to increasing price risk as capacity factors decrease. Many of these firm hedge products have damages risk.

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy periodically shut down their nuclear power plants to replenish fuel.  Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such refueling outages.  If refueling outages last longer than anticipated or if unplanned outages arise, Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected.

Outages at nuclear power plants to replenish fuel require the plant to be “turned off.”  Refueling outages generally are planned to occur once every 18 to 24 months.  Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such planned outages, which typically extends the planned outage duration.  When refueling outages last longer than anticipated or a plant experiences unplanned outages, capacity factors decrease, and maintenance costs may increase.

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy face risks related to the purchase of uranium fuel (and its conversion, enrichment, and fabrication). These risks could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, Entergy’s nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable prices through 2020 and beyond. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners. While there are a number of possible alternate suppliers that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, the pricing of any such alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time. Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S. Market prices for nuclear fuel have been extremely volatile from time to time in the past and may be subject to increased volatility due to the imposition of tariffs, domestic purchase requirements or limitations on importation of uranium or uranium products from foreign countries, or shifting trade arrangements between countries.  Although Entergy’s nuclear fuel contract portfolio provides a degree of hedging against market risks for several years, costs for nuclear fuel in the future cannot be predicted with certainty due to normal inherent market uncertainties, and price changes could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.

Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance and reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. These service providers are fewer in number than uranium suppliers. For conversion and enrichment services, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures to ensure a reliable supply of enriched uranium for fabrication into nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel; therefore, Entergy relies upon additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight of the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality of its nuclear fuel. Certain of the suppliers and service providers are located in or dependent upon countries, such as Russia, in which international sanctions or tariffs could further restrict the ability of such
292

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

suppliers to continue to supply fuel or provide such services at acceptable prices or at all.  The inability of such suppliers or service providers to perform such obligations could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business face the risk that the NRC will change or modify its regulations, suspend or revoke their licenses, or increase oversight of their nuclear plants, which could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Under the Atomic Energy Act and Energy Reorganization Act, the NRC regulates the operation of nuclear power plants.  The NRC may modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility and impose civil penalties for failure to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, related regulations, or the terms of the licenses for nuclear facilities. Interested parties may also intervene which could result in prolonged proceedings. A change in the Atomic Energy Act, other applicable statutes, or the applicable regulations or licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, may require a substantial increase in capital expenditures or may result in increased operating or decommissioning costs and could materially affect the results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition of Entergy (through Entergy Wholesale Commodities), its Utility operating companies, or System Energy.  A change in the classification of a plant owned by one of these companies under the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process, which is the NRC’s program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response, also could cause the owner of the plant to incur material additional costs as a result of the increased oversight activity and potential response costs associated with the change in classification.For additional information concerning the current classification of the plants owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see “Regulation of Entergy’s Business- Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry - NRC Reactor Oversight Process” in Part I, Item 1.

Events at nuclear plants owned by one of these companies, as well as those owned by others, may lead to a change in laws or regulations or the terms of the applicable licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, or may cause the NRC to increase oversight activity or initiate actions to modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility, or impose civil penalties.  As a result, if an incident were to occur at any nuclear generating unit, whether an Entergy nuclear generating unit or not, it could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities are exposed to risks and costs related to operating and maintaining their nuclear power plants, and their failure to maintain operational efficiency at their nuclear power plants could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

The nuclear generating units owned by certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy,and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business began commercial operations in the 1970s-1980s.  Older equipment may require more capital expenditures to keep each of these nuclear power plants operating safely and efficiently.  This equipment is also likely to require periodic upgrading and improvement.  Any unexpected failure, including failure associated with breakdowns, forced outages, or any unanticipated capital expenditures, could result in increased costs, some of which costs may not be fully recoverable by the Utility operating companies and System Energy in regulatory proceedings should there be a determination of imprudence.  Operations at any of the nuclear generating units owned and operated by Entergy’s subsidiaries could degrade to the point where the affected unit needs to be shut down or operated at less than full capacity.  If this were to happen, identifying and correcting the causes may require significant time and expense.  A decision may be made to close a unit rather than incur the expense of restarting it or returning the unit to full capacity.  For the Utility operating companies and System Energy, this could result in certain costs being stranded and potentially not fully recoverable in regulatory proceedings. For Entergy Wholesale Commodities, this could result in lost revenue and increased fuel and purchased power expense to meet
293

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

supply commitments and penalties for failure to perform under their contracts with customers. In addition, the operation and maintenance of Entergy’s nuclear facilities require the commitment of substantial human resources that can result in increased costs.

The nuclear industry continues to address susceptibility to the effects of stress corrosion cracking and other corrosion mechanisms on certain materials within plant systems.  The issue is applicable at all nuclear units to varying degrees and is managed in accordance with industry standard practices and guidelines that include in-service examinations, replacements, and mitigation strategies.  Developments in the industry or identification of issues at the nuclear units could require unanticipated remediation efforts that cannot be quantified in advance.

Moreover, Entergy is becoming more dependent on fewer suppliers for key parts of Entergy’s nuclear power plants that may need to be replaced or refurbished, and in some cases, parts are no longer available and have to be reverse-engineered for replacement.  In addition, certain major parts have long lead-times to manufacture if an unplanned replacement is needed. This dependence on a reduced number of suppliers and long lead-times on certain major parts for unplanned replacements could result in delays in obtaining qualified replacement parts and, therefore, greater expense for Entergy.

The costs associated with the storage of the spent nuclear fuel of certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, as well as the costs of and their ability to fully decommission their nuclear power plants, could be significantly affected by the timing of the opening of a spent nuclear fuel disposal facility, as well as interim storage and transportation requirements.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants incur costs for the on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel.  The approval of a license for a national repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, such as the one proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, or any interim storage facility, and the timing of such facility opening, will significantly affect the costs associated with on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel.  For example, while the DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing of Yucca Mountain and, after the license is granted by the NRC, to construct the repository and commence the receipt of spent fuel, the NRC licensing of the Yucca Mountain repository is effectively at a standstill. These actions are prolonging the time before spent fuel is removed from Entergy’s plant sites.  Because the DOE has not accomplished its objectives, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts, and Entergy has sued the DOE for such breach.  Furthermore, Entergy is uncertain as to when the DOE will commence acceptance of spent fuel from its facilities for storage or disposal.  As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at the companies’ nuclear sites and maintenance costs on existing storage facilities, including aging management of fuel storage casks, may increase.  The costs of on-site storage are also affected by regulatory requirements for such storage.  In addition, the availability of a repository or other off-site storage facility for spent nuclear fuel may affect the ability to fully decommission the nuclear units and the costs relating to decommissioning.  For further information regarding spent fuel storage, see the “Critical Accounting EstimatesNuclear Decommissioning CostsSpent Fuel Disposal” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy and Note 8 to the financial statements.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to pay substantial retrospective premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act in the event of a nuclear incident, and losses not covered by insurance could have a material effect on Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

Accidents and other unforeseen problems at nuclear power plants have occurred both in the United States and elsewhere.  The Price-Anderson Act limits each reactor owner’s public liability (off-site) for a single nuclear incident to the payment of retrospective premiums into a secondary insurance pool, which is referred to as Secondary Financial Protection, up to approximately $137.6 million per reactor.  With 97 reactors currently
294

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

participating, this translates to a total public liability cap of approximately $14 billion per incident.  The limit is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation, a change in the primary limit of insurance coverage, and changes in the number of licensed reactors.  As required by the Price-Anderson Act, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities carry the maximum available amount of primary nuclear off-site liability insurance with American Nuclear Insurers, which is $450 million for each operating site.  Claims for any nuclear incident exceeding that amount are covered under Secondary Financial Protection.  As a result, in the event of a nuclear incident that causes damages (off-site) in excess of the primary insurance coverage, each owner of a nuclear plant reactor, including Entergy’s Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners, regardless of fault or proximity to the incident, will be required to pay a retrospective premium, equal to its proportionate share of the loss in excess of the primary insurance level, up to a maximum of approximately $137.6 million per reactor per incident (Entergy’s maximum total contingent obligation per incident is $1.101 billion).  The retrospective premium payment is currently limited to approximately $21 million per year per incident per reactor until the aggregate public liability for each licensee is paid up to the $137.6 million cap.

NEIL is a utility industry mutual insurance company, owned by its members, including the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants. All member plants could be subject to an annual assessment (retrospective premium of up to 10 times current annual premium for all policies) should the NEIL surplus (reserve) be significantly depleted due toinsured losses.  As of December 31, 2020, the maximum annual assessment amounts total $104 million for the Utility plants.  Retrospective premium insurance available through NEIL’s reinsurance treaty can cover the potential assessments and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants currently maintain the retrospective premium insurance to cover those potential assessments.

As an owner of nuclear power plants, Entergy participates in industry self-insurance programs and could be liable to fund claims should a plant owned by a different company experience a major event.  Any resulting liability from a nuclear accident may exceed the applicable primary insurance coverage and require contribution of additional funds through the industry-wide program that could significantly affect the results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries.

The decommissioning trust fund assets for the nuclear power plants owned by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may not be adequate to meet decommissioning obligations if market performance and other changes decrease the value of assets in the decommissioning trusts, if one or more of Entergy’s nuclear power plants is retired earlier than the anticipated shutdown date, if the plants cost more to decommission than estimated, or if current regulatory requirements change, which then could require significant additional funding.

Owners of nuclear generating plants have an obligation to decommission those plants.  Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants maintain decommissioning trust funds for this purpose.  Certain of the Utility operating companies collect funds from their customers, which are deposited into the trusts covering the units operated for or on behalf of those companies.  Those rate collections, as adjusted from time to time by rate regulators, are generally based upon operating license lives and trust fund balances as well as estimated trust fund earnings and decommissioning costs.  Assets in these trust funds are subject to market fluctuations, will yield uncertain returns that may fall below projected return rates, and may result in losses resulting from the recognition of impairments of the value of certain securities held in these trust funds.

Under NRC regulations, nuclear plant owners are permitted to project the NRC-required decommissioning amount, based on an NRC formula or a site-specific estimate, and the amount that will be available in each nuclear power plant’s decommissioning trusts combined with any other decommissioning financial assurances in place.  The projections are made based on the operating license expiration date and the mid-point of the subsequent
295

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

decommissioning process, or the anticipated actual completion of decommissioning if a site-specific estimate is used. If the projected amount of each individual plant’s decommissioning trusts exceeds the NRC-required decommissioning amount, then its NRC license termination decommissioning obligations are considered to be funded in accordance with NRC regulations.  If the projected costs do not sufficiently reflect the actual costs required to decommission these nuclear power plants, or funding is otherwise inadequate, or if the formula, formula inputs, or site-specific estimate is changed to require increased funding, additional resources or commitments would be required.  Furthermore, depending upon the level of funding available in the trust funds, the NRC may not permit the trust funds to be used to pay for related costs such as the management of spent nuclear fuel that are not included in the NRC’s formula.  The NRC may also require a plan for the provision of separate funding for spent fuel management costs.  In addition to NRC requirements, there are other decommissioning-related obligations for certain of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, which management believes it will be able to satisfy.

Further, federal or state regulatory changes, including mandated increases in decommissioning funding or changes in the methods or standards for decommissioning operations, may also increase the funding requirements of, or accelerate the timing for funding of, the obligations related to the decommissioning of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants or may restrict the decommissioning-related costs that can be paid from the decommissioning trusts.  Such changes also could result in the need for additional contributions to decommissioning trusts, or the posting of parent guarantees, letters of credit, or other surety mechanisms. As a result, under any of these circumstances, Entergy’s results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition could be materially affected.

An early plant shutdown (either generally or relative to current expectations), poor investment results, or higher than anticipated decommissioning costs (including as a result of changing regulatory requirements) could cause trust fund assets to be insufficient to meet the decommissioning obligations, with the result that the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to provide significant additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning, which, with respect to the Utility operating companies, may not be recoverable from customers in a timely fashion or at all.

For further information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs, management’s decision to suspendexit the merchant power business, the impairment charges that resulted from such decision, and the planned sales of Palisades and Indian Point Energy Center (which, in each case, will include the transfer of the associated decommissioning trusts), see the “Critical Accounting Estimates- Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, and Notes 9 and 14 to the financial statements.

New or existing safety concerns regarding operating nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel could lead to restrictions upon the operation and decommissioning of Entergy’s nuclear power plants.

New and existing concerns are being expressed in public forums about the safety of nuclear generating units and nuclear fuel. These concerns have led to, and may continue to lead to, various proposals to Federal regulators and governing bodies in some localities where Entergy’s subsidiaries own nuclear generating units for legislative and regulatory changes that might lead to the shutdown of nuclear units, additional requirements or restrictions related to spent nuclear fuel on-site storage and eventual disposal, or other adverse effects on owning, operating, and decommissioning nuclear generating units.  Entergy vigorously responds to these concerns and proposals.  If any of the existing proposals, or any proposals that may arise in the future with respect to legislative and regulatory changes, become effective, they could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations and financial condition.

296

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

(Entergy Corporation)

Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are exposed to price risk.

Entergy and its subsidiaries do not have a regulator-authorized rate of return on their capital investments in non-utility businesses.  As a result, the sale of capacity and energy from the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, unless otherwise contracted, is subject to the fluctuation of market power prices. In order to reduce future price risk to desired levels, Entergy Wholesale Commodities utilizes contracts that are unit-contingent and Firm LD and various products such as forward sales, options, and collars.  As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power generation plants had sold forward 98% in 2021 and 99% in 2022 of its generation portfolio’s planned energy output, reflecting the planned shutdown and sale of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants by mid-2022.

Market conditions such as product cost, market liquidity, and other portfolio considerations influence the product and contractual mix.  The obligations under unit-contingent agreements depend on a longer-termgenerating asset that is operating; if the generation asset is not operating, the seller generally is not liable for damages.  For some unit-contingent obligations, however, there is also a guarantee of availability that provides for the payment to the power purchaser of contract damages, if incurred, in the event the unit owner fails to deliver power as a result of the failure of the specified generation unit to generate power at or above a specified availability threshold.  Firm LD sales transactions may be exposed to substantial operational price risk, a portion of which may be capped through the use of risk management products, to the extent that the plants do not run as expected and market prices exceed contract prices.

Market prices may fluctuate substantially, sometimes over relatively short periods of time, and at other times experience sustained increases or decreases.  Demand for electricity and its fuel stock can fluctuate dramatically, creating periods of substantial under- or over-supply.  During periods of over-supply, prices might be depressed.  Also, from time to time there may be political pressure, or pressure from regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over wholesale and retail energy commodity and transportation rates, to impose price limitations, credit requirements, bidding rules, and other mechanisms to address volatility and other issues in these markets.

The effects of sustained low natural gas prices and power market structure challenges have resulted in lower market prices for electricity in the power regions where the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are located. In addition, currently the market design under which the plants operate does not adequately compensate merchant nuclear plants for their environmental and fuel diversity benefits in the region. These conditions were primary factors leading to Entergy’s decision to shut down (or sell) Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power plants before the end of their operating licenses.

The price that different counterparties offer for various products including forward sales is influenced both by market conditions as well as the contract terms such as damage provisions, credit support requirements, and the number of available counterparties interested in contracting for the desired forward period.  Depending on differences between market factors at the time of contracting versus current conditions, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contract portfolio may have average contract prices above or below current market prices, including at the expiration of the contracts, which may significantly affect Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.  New hedges are generally layered into on a rolling forward basis, waswhich tends to drive hedge over-performance to market in a falling price environment, and hedge underperformance to market in a rising price environment; however, hedge timing, product choice, and hedging costs will also affect these results. See the “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries.  Since Entergy Wholesale Commodities has announced the closure (or sale) of its nuclear plants, Entergy Wholesale Commodities may enter into fewer forward sales contracts for output from such plants.

297

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to substantial governmental regulation and may be adversely affected by legislative, regulatory, or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to extensive regulation under federal, state, and local laws. Compliance with the requirements under these various regulatory regimes may cause the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to incur significant additional costs, and failure to comply with such requirements could result in the shutdown of the non-complying facility, the imposition of liens, fines, and/or civil or criminal liability.

Public utilities under the Federal Power Act are required to obtain FERC acceptance of their rate schedules for wholesale sales of electricity.  Each of the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants that generates electricity, as well as Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC, is a “public utility” under the Federal Power Act by virtue of making wholesale sales of electric energy and/or owning wholesale electric transmission facilities.  The FERC has granted these generating and power marketing companies the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates.  The FERC’s orders that grant the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating and power marketing companies market-based rate authority reserve the right to revoke or revise that authority if the FERC subsequently determines that the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business can exercise market power in transmission or generation, create barriers to entry, or engage in abusive affiliate transactions.  In addition, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ market-based sales are subject to certain market behavior rules, and if any of its generating and power marketing companies were deemed to have violated one of those rules, they would be subject to potential disgorgement of profits associated with the violation and/or suspension or revocation of their market-based rate authority and potential penalties of up to $1.29 million per day per violation.  If the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating or power marketing companies were to lose their market-based rate authority, such companies would be required to obtain the FERC’s acceptance of a cost-of-service rate schedule and could become subject to the accounting, record-keeping, and reporting requirements that are imposed on utilities with cost-based rate schedules.  This could have an adverse effect on the rates the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business charges for power from its facilities.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is also affected by legislative and regulatory changes, as well as changes to market design, market rules, tariffs, cost allocations, and bidding rules imposed by the existing Independent System Operators.  The Independent System Operators that oversee most of the wholesale power markets may impose, and in the future may continue to impose, mitigation, including price limitations, offer caps and other mechanisms, to address some of the volatility and the potential exercise of market power in these markets.  These types of price limitations and other regulatory mechanisms may have an adverse effect on the profitability of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business’ generation facilities that sell energy and capacity into the wholesale power markets. For further information regarding federal, state, and local laws and regulation applicable to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Regulation of Entergy’s Business” section in Part I, Item 1.

The regulatory environment applicable to the electric power industry is subject to changes as a result of restructuring initiatives at both the state and federal levels. Entergy cannot predict the future design of the wholesale power markets or the ultimate effect that the changing regulatory environment will have on the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.  In addition, in some of these markets, interested parties have proposed material market design changes, including the elimination of a single clearing price mechanism, have raised claims that the competitive marketplace is not imprudent; (2) indicatedworking because energy prices in wholesale markets exceed the marginal cost of operating nuclear power plants, and have made proposals to re-regulate the markets, impose a generation tax, or require divestitures by generating companies to reduce their market share.  Other proposals to re-regulate may be made and legislative or other attention to the electric power market restructuring process may delay or reverse the deregulation process, which could require material changes to business planning models.  If competitive restructuring of the electric power markets is reversed, modified, discontinued, or delayed, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected.
298

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


The power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to impairment charges in certain circumstances, which could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

Entergy reviews long-lived assets held in all of its business segments whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that exceptrecoverability of these assets is uncertain.  Generally, the determination of recoverability is based on the undiscounted net cash flows expected to result from the operations of such assets.  Projected net cash flows depend on the expected operating life of the assets, the future operating costs associated with the assets, the efficiency and availability of the assets and generating units, and the future market and price for $0.8energy and capacity over the remaining life of the assets.  In particular, the remaining assets of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to further impairment in connection with the closure and sale of its nuclear power plants. Moreover, prior to the closure and sale of these plants, the failure of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to achieve forecasted operating results and cash flows, an unfavorable change in forecasted operating results or cash flows, a reduction in the expected remaining useful life of a unit, or a decline in observable industry market multiples could all result in potential additional impairment charges for the affected assets.

If Entergy concludes that any of its nuclear power plants is unlikely to operate through its planned shutdown date, which conclusion would be based on a variety of factors, such a conclusion could result in a further impairment of part or all of the carrying value of the plant.  Any impairment charge taken by Entergy with respect to its long-lived assets, including the remaining power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, would likely be material in the quarter that the charge is taken and could otherwise have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. For further information regarding evaluating long-lived assets for impairment, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates - Impairment of Long-lived Assets” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries and for further discussion of the impairment charges, see Note 14 to the financial statements.

General Business

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Entergy and the Utility operating companies depend on access to the capital markets and, at times, may face potential liquidity constraints, which could make it more difficult to handle future contingencies such as natural disasters or substantial increases in gas and fuel prices.  Disruptions in the capital and credit markets may adversely affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to meet liquidity needs, access capital and operate and grow their businesses, and the cost of capital.

Entergy’s business is capital intensive and dependent upon its ability to access capital at reasonable rates and other terms.  At times there are also spikes in the price for natural gas and other commodities that increase the liquidity requirements of the Utility operating companies and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  In addition, Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity needs could significantly increase in the event of a hurricane or other weather-related or unforeseen disaster similar to that experienced in Entergy’s service territory with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike in 2008, Hurricane Isaac in 2012, and Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta in 2020.  The occurrence of one or more contingencies, including a delay in regulatory recovery of fuel or purchased power costs or storm restoration costs, an acceleration of payments or decreased credit lines, less cash flow from operations than expected, changes in regulation or governmental policy (including tax and trade policy), or other unknown events, could cause the financing needs of Entergy and its subsidiaries to increase.  In addition, accessing the debt capital markets more frequently in these situations may result in an increase in leverage.  Material leverage increases could negatively affect the credit ratings of Entergy and the Utility operating companies, which in turn could negatively affect access to the capital markets.
299

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


The inability to raise capital on favorable terms, particularly during times of high interest rates, and uncertainty or reduced liquidity in the capital markets, could negatively affect Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to maintain and to expand their businesses.  Access to capital markets could be restricted and/or borrowing costs could be increased due to certain sources of debt and equity capital being unwilling to invest in companies that experience extreme weather events, that rely on fossil fuels or offerings to fund fossil fuel projects, or due to risks related to climate change. Events beyond Entergy’s control may create uncertainty that could increase its cost of capital or impair its ability to access the capital markets, including the ability to draw on its bank credit facilities.  Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the degree of success they will have in renewing or replacing their credit facilities as they come up for renewal.  Moreover, the size, terms, and covenants of any new credit facilities may not be comparable to, and may be more restrictive than, existing facilities.  If Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to access the credit and capital markets on terms that are reasonable, they may have to delay raising capital, issue shorter-term securities and/or bear an unfavorable cost of capital, which, in turn, could impact their ability to grow their businesses, decrease earnings, significantly reduce financial flexibility and/or limit Entergy Corporation’s ability to sustain its current common stock dividend level.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

A downgrade in Entergy Corporations or its subsidiariescredit ratings could negatively affect Entergy Corporations and its subsidiariesability to access capital and/or could require Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries to post collateral, accelerate certain payments, or repay certain indebtedness.

There are a number of factors that rating agencies evaluate to arrive at credit ratings for each of Entergy Corporation and the Registrant Subsidiaries, including each Registrant’s regulatory framework, ability to recover costs and earn returns, diversification and financial strength and liquidity.  If one or more rating agencies downgrade Entergy Corporation’s, any of the Utility operating companies’, or System Energy’s ratings, particularly below investment grade, borrowing costs would increase, the potential pool of investors and funding sources would likely decrease, and cash or letter of credit collateral demands may be triggered by the terms of a number of commodity contracts, leases, and other agreements.

Most of Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ suppliers and counterparties require sufficient creditworthiness to enter into transactions.  If Entergy Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ ratings decline, particularly below investment grade, or if certain counterparties believe Entergy Corporation or the Utility operating companies are losing creditworthiness and demand adequate assurance under fuel, gas, and purchased power contracts, the counterparties may require posting of collateral in cash or letters of credit, prepayment for fuel, gas or purchased power or accelerated payment, or counterparties may decline business with Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries. At December 31, 2020 based on power prices at that time, Entergy had liquidity exposure of $62 million under the guarantees in compensation-relatedplace supporting Entergy Wholesale Commodities transactions and $6 million of posted cash collateral. In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation’s credit rating to below investment grade, based on power prices as of December 31, 2020, Entergy would have been required to provide approximately $30 million of additional cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements. As of December 31, 2020, the liquidity exposure associated with Entergy Wholesale Commodities assurance requirements, including return of previously posted collateral from counterparties, would increase by $22 million for a $1 per MMBtu increase in gas prices in both the short- and long-term markets.

Recent U.S. tax legislation may materially adversely affect Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and CARES Act of 2020 significantly changed the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, including taxation of U.S. corporations, by, among other things, reducing the federal corporate income tax rate, limiting interest deductions, and altering the expensing of capital expenditures. The interpretive
300

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

guidance issued by the IRS and state tax authorities may be inconsistent with Entergy’s own interpretation and the legislation could be subject to amendments, which could lessen or increase certain impacts of the legislation.

As further described in Note 3 to the financial statements, as a result of amortization of accumulated deferred income taxes and payment of such amounts to customers in 2019, Entergy’s net regulatory liability for income taxes balance is $1.6 billion as of December 31, 2020. Depending on the outcome of IRS examinations or tax positions and elections that Entergy may make, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries may be required to record additional charges or credits to income tax expense. Further, there may be other material effects resulting from the legislation that have not been identified.

See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on 2018, 2019 and 2020 results of operations and financial condition, the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the regulatory proceedings that have considered the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Changes in taxation as well as the inherent difficulty in quantifying potential tax effects of business decisions could negatively impact Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Entergy and its subsidiaries make judgments regarding the potential tax effects of various transactions and results of operations to estimate their obligations to taxing authorities.  These tax obligations include income, franchise, real estate, sales and use, and employment-related taxes.  These judgments include provisions for potential adverse outcomes regarding tax positions that have been taken.  Entergy and its subsidiaries also estimate their ability to utilize tax benefits, including those in the form of carryforwards for which the benefits have already been reflected in the financial statements.  Changes in federal, state, or local tax laws, adverse tax audit results or adverse tax rulings on positions taken by Entergy and its subsidiaries could negatively affect Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. For further information regarding Entergy’s income taxes, see Note 3 to the financial statements.

Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to successfully execute on their business strategies, including their ability to complete strategic transactions, is subject to significant risks, and, as a result, they may be unable to achieve some or all of the anticipated results of such strategies, which could materially affect their future prospects, results of operations, and benefits that they anticipate from such transactions.

Entergy and its subsidiaries’ future prospects and results of operations significantly depend on their ability to successfully implement their business strategies, which are subject to business, regulatory, economic, and other risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond their control. As a result, Entergy and its subsidiaries may be unable to fully achieve the anticipated results of such strategies.

Additionally, Entergy and its subsidiaries have pursued and may continue to pursue strategic transactions including merger, acquisition, divestiture, joint venture, restructuring, or other strategic transactions. For example, Entergy has entered into an agreement to sell its equity interests in the subsidiary that owns the Palisades Nuclear Plant and the decommissioned Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant and an agreement to sell the equity interests of Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3, in each case after each of the plants has been shut down and defueled. Also, a significant portion of Entergy’s utility business over the next several years includes the construction and/or purchase of a variety of generating units. These transactions and plans are or may become subject to regulatory approval and other material conditions or contingencies. The failure to complete these transactions or plans or any future strategic transaction successfully or on a timely basis could have an adverse effect on Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ financial condition or results of operations and the market’s perception of Entergy’s ability to execute its strategy. Further, these transactions, and any completed or future strategic transactions, involve substantial risks, including the following:

301

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

acquired businesses or assets may not produce revenues, earnings, or cash flow at anticipated levels;
acquired businesses or assets could have environmental, permitting, or other problems for which contractual protections prove inadequate;
Entergy and/or its subsidiaries may assume liabilities that were not disclosed to them, that exceed their estimates, or for which their rights to indemnification from the seller are limited;
Entergy may experience issues integrating businesses into its internal controls over financial reporting;
the disposition of a business, including Entergy’s planned exit from the merchant power business, could divert management’s attention from other business concerns;
Entergy and/or its subsidiaries may be unable to obtain the necessary regulatory or governmental approvals to close a transaction, such approvals may be granted subject to terms that are unacceptable, or Entergy or its subsidiaries otherwise may be unable to achieve anticipated regulatory treatment of any such transaction or acquired business or assets; and
Entergy or its subsidiaries otherwise may be unable to achieve the full strategic and financial benefits that they anticipate from the transaction, or such benefits may be delayed or may not occur at all.

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be successful in managing these or any other significant risks that they may encounter in acquiring or divesting a business, or engaging in other strategic transactions, which could have a material effect on their business, financial condition or results of operations.

The completion of capital projects, including the construction of power generation facilities, and other capital improvements involve substantial risks.  Should such efforts be unsuccessful, the financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity of Entergy and the Utility operating companies could be materially affected.

Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ ability to complete capital projects, including the construction of power generation facilities, or make other capital improvements, in a timely manner and within budget is contingent upon many variables and subject to substantial risks.  These variables include, but are not limited to, project management expertise, escalating costs for materials, labor, and environmental compliance, and reliance on suppliers for timely and satisfactory performance.  Delays in obtaining permits, shortages in materials and qualified labor, levels of public support or opposition, suppliers and contractors not performing as expected or required under their contracts and/or experiencing financial problems that inhibit their ability to fulfill their obligations under contracts, changes in the scope and timing of projects, poor quality initial cost estimates from contractors, the inability to raise capital on favorable terms, changes in commodity prices affecting revenue, fuel costs, or materials costs,  downward changes in the economy, changes in law or regulation, including environmental compliance requirements, and other events beyond the control of the Utility operating companies or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may occur that may materially affect the schedule, cost, and performance of these projects.  If these projects or other capital improvements are significantly delayed or become subject to cost overruns or cancellation, Entergy and the Utility operating companies could incur additional costs and termination payments, or face increased risk of potential write-off of the investment in the project.  In addition, the Utility operating companies could be exposed to higher costs and market volatility, which could affect cash flow and cost recovery, should their respective regulators decline to approve the construction of the project or new generation needed to meet the reliability needs of customers at the lowest reasonable cost.

For further information regarding capital expenditure plans and other uses of capital in connection with capital projects, including the potential construction and/or purchase of additional generation supply sources within the Utility operating companies’ service territory, and as to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy and each of the Registrant Subsidiaries.

302

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Failure to attract, retain and manage an appropriately qualified workforce could negatively affect Entergy or its subsidiaries’ results of operations.

We rely on a large and changing workforce of team members, including employees, contractors and temporary staffing. Certain events, such as an aging workforce, mismatching of skill sets, failing to appropriately anticipate future workforce needs, or the unavailability of contract resources may lead to operating challenges and increased costs. The challenges include lack of resources, loss of knowledge base, and the time required for skill development. In this case, costs, including costs for contractors to replace employees, productivity costs, and safety costs, may increase. Failure to hire and adequately train replacement employees, or the future availability and cost of contract labor may adversely affect the ability to manage and operate the business, especially considering the workforce needs associated with nuclear generation facilities and new skills required to operate a modernized, technology-enabled power grid. If Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to successfully attract, retain, and manage an appropriately qualified workforce, their results of operations, financial position, and cash flows could be negatively affected.

The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs to fulfill their obligations related to environmental and other matters.

The businesses in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business operate are subject to extensive environmental regulation by local, state, and federal authorities.  These laws and regulations affect the manner in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business conduct their operations and make capital expenditures.  These laws and regulations also affect how the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business manage air emissions, discharges to water, wetlands impacts, solid and hazardous waste storage and disposal, cooling and service water intake, the protection of threatened and endangered species, certain migratory birds and eagles, hazardous materials transportation, and similar matters.  Federal, state, and local authorities continually revise these laws and regulations, and the laws and regulations are subject to judicial interpretation and to the permitting and enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies.  Developing and implementing plans for facility compliance with these requirements can lead to capital, personnel, and operation and maintenance expenditures.  Violations of these requirements can subject the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to enforcement actions, capital expenditures to bring existing facilities into compliance, additional operating costs or operating restrictions to achieve compliance, remediation and clean-up costs, civil penalties, and exposure to third parties’ claims for alleged health or property damages or for violations of applicable permits or standards.  In addition, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business potentially are subject to liability under these laws for the costs of remediation of environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned or operated by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities and of property contaminated by hazardous substances they generate.  The Utility operating companies currently are involved in proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been released and may be subject to additional proceedings in the future.  The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business have incurred shouldand expect to incur significant costs related to environmental compliance.

Emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, mercury, particulates, greenhouse gases, and other regulated air emissions from generating plants potentially are subject to increased regulation, controls, and mitigation expenses.  In addition, existing air regulations and programs promulgated by the EPA often are challenged legally, or are revised or withdrawn by the EPA, sometimes resulting in large-scale changes to anticipated regulatory regimes and the resulting need to shift course, both operationally and economically, depending on the nature of the changes.  Risks relating to global climate change, initiatives to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions, and water availability issues are discussed below.

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be deemed prudent; (3) recommendedable to obtain or maintain all required environmental regulatory approvals.  If there is a delay in obtaining any required environmental regulatory approvals, or if Entergy and its subsidiaries fail to obtain, maintain, or comply with any such approval, the operation of its facilities could be
303

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

stopped or become subject to additional costs.  For further information regarding environmental regulation and environmental matters, see the “Regulation of Entergys Business– Environmental Regulation” section of Part I, Item 1.

The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs related to reliability standards.

Entergy’s business is subject to extensive and mandatory reliability standards.  Such standards, which are established by the NERC, the SERC, and other regional enforcement entities, are approved by the FERC and frequently are reviewed, amended, and supplemented.  Failure to comply with such standards could result in the imposition of fines or civil penalties, and potential exposure to third party claims for alleged violations of such standards.  The standards, as well as the laws and regulations that govern them, are subject to judicial interpretation and to the enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies.  In addition to exposure to civil penalties and fines, the Utility operating companies have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to compliance with new and existing reliability standards, including costs associated with the Utility operating companies’ transmission system and generation assets.  In addition, the retail regulators of the Utility operating companies possess the jurisdiction, and in some cases have exercised such jurisdiction, to impose standards governing the reliable operation of the Utility operating companies’ distribution systems, including penalties if these standards are not met. The changes to the reliability standards applicable to the electric power industry are ongoing, and Entergy cannot predict the ultimate effect that the reliability standards will have on its Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Weather, economic conditions, technological developments, and other factors may have a material impact on electricity and gas usage and otherwise materially affect the Utility operating companiesresults of operations and system reliability.

Temperatures above normal levels in the summer tend to increase electric cooling demand and revenues, and temperatures below normal levels in the winter tend to increase electric and gas heating demand and revenues.  As a corollary, mild temperatures in either season tend to decrease energy usage and resulting revenues.  Higher consumption levels coupled with seasonal pricing differentials typically cause the Utility operating companies to report higher revenues in the third quarter of the fiscal year than in the other quarters.  Extreme weather conditions including hurricanes or tropical storms, flooding events, or ice storms may stress the Utility operating companies’ generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on their ability to meet peak customer demand, increased regulatory oversight, and reduced customer satisfaction.  These extreme conditions could have a material effect on the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

Entergy’s electricity sales volumes are affected by a number of factors including weather and economic conditions, trends in energy efficiency, new technologies, and self-generation alternatives, including the willingness and ability of large industrial customers to develop co-generation facilities that greatly reduce their grid demand. Some of these factors are inherently cyclical or temporary in nature, such as the weather or economic conditions, and rarely have a long-lasting effect on Entergy’s operating results.  Others, such as the organic turnover of appliances and their replacement with more efficient ones, adoption of newer technologies including smart thermostats, new building codes, distributed energy resources, energy storage, demand side management, and rooftop solar are having a more permanent effect by reducing sales growth rates from historical norms. As a result of these emerging efficiencies and technologies, the Utility operating companies may lose customers or experience lower average use per customer in the residential and commercial classes, and continuing advances have the potential to further limit sales growth in the future. The Utility operating companies also may face competition from other companies offering products and services to Entergy’s customers. Electricity sales to industrial
304

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

customers, in particular, benefit from steady economic growth and favorable commodity markets; however, industrial sales are sensitive to changes in conditions in the markets in which its customers operate.  Negative changes in any of these or other factors, particularly sustained economic downturns or sluggishness, have the potential to result in slower sales growth or sales declines and increased bad debt expense, which could materially affect Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

The effects of climate change, environmental and regulatory obligations intended to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions or increase clean or renewable energy requirements or to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions, or achieving voluntary climate commitments could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.

In an effort to address climate change concerns, some federal, state, and local authorities are calling for additional laws and regulations aimed at known or suspected causes of climate change.  For example, in response to the United States Supreme Court’s 2007 decision holding that the EPA has authority to regulate emissions of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” under the Clean Air Act, the EPA, various environmental interest groups, and other organizations focused considerable attention on CO2 emissions from power generation facilities and their potential role in climate change.  Since that ruling, the EPA has promulgated regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions from certain vehicles, and from new, existing, and significantly modified stationary sources of emissions, including electric generating units. As examples of state action, in the Northeast, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative establishes a cap on CO2 emissions from electric power plants and requires generators to purchase emission permits to cover their CO2 emissions, and a similar program has been developed in California. In Louisiana, the Office of the Governor announced the creation of a Climate Initiatives Task Force and issued an executive order that established a path to net-zero emissions by 2050 while the City Council of New Orleans passed a renewable and clean portfolio standard that sets a goal of net-zero emissions by 2040 and absolute zero emissions by 2050. The impact that continued changes in the governmental response to climate change risk will have on existing and pending environmental laws and regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions is currently unclear.

Developing and implementing plans for compliance with greenhouse gas emissions reduction, clean/renewable energy requirements, or for achieving voluntary climate commitments can lead to additional capital, personnel, and operation and maintenance expenditures and could significantly affect the economic position of existing facilities and proposed projects. The operations of low or non-emitting generating units (such as nuclear units) at lower than expected capacity factors could require increased generation from higher emitting units, thus increasing the company’s greenhouse gas emission rate. Moreover, long-term planning to meet environmental requirements can be negatively impacted and costs may increase to the extent laws and regulations change prior to full implementation.  These requirements could, in turn, lead to changes in the planning or operations of balancing authorities or organized markets in areas where the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities do business. Violations of such requirements may subject Entergy Wholesale Commodities and the Utility operating companies to enforcement actions, capital expenditures to bring existing facilities into compliance, additional operating costs or operating restrictions to achieve compliance, civil penalties, and exposure to third parties’ claims for alleged health or property damages or for violations of applicable permits or standards.  To the extent Entergy believes any of these costs are recoverable in rates, however, additional material rate increases for customers could be resisted by Entergy’s regulators and, in extreme cases, Entergy’s regulators might attempt to deny or defer timely recovery of these costs.  Future changes in regulation or policies governing the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases or mix of generation sources could (i) result in significant additional costs to Entergy’s utility operating companies, their suppliers or customers, (ii) make some of Entergy’s electric generating units uneconomical to maintain or operate, (iii) result in the early retirement of generation facilities and stranded costs if Entergy’s utility operating companies are unable to fully recover the costs and investment in generation and (iv) could increase the difficulty that Entergy and its utility operating companies have with obtaining or maintaining required environmental regulatory approvals, each of which could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy and its subsidiaries.  In addition, lawsuits have occurred or are reasonably expected against emitters of greenhouse gases alleging that these
305

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

companies are liable for personal injuries and property damage caused by climate change.  These lawsuits may seek injunctive relief, monetary compensation, and punitive damages.

In addition to the regulatory and financial risks associated with climate change discussed above, potential physical risks from climate change include an increase in sea level, wind and storm surge damages, wildfires, wetland and barrier island erosion, risks of flooding and changes in weather conditions, (such as increases in precipitation, drought, or changes in average temperatures), and potential increased impacts of extreme weather conditions or storms.  Entergy subsidiaries own assets in, and serve, communities that are at risk from sea level rise, changes in weather conditions, storms, and loss of the protection offered by coastal wetlands.  A significant portion of the nation’s oil and gas infrastructure is located in these areas and susceptible to storm damage that could be aggravated by the physical impacts of climate change, which could give rise to fuel supply interruptions and price spikes. Entergy and its subsidiaries also face the risk that climate change could impact the availability and quality of water supply necessary for operations.

These and other physical changes could result in changes in customer demand, increased costs associated with repairing and maintaining generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on the Entergy System’s ability to meet peak customer demand, more frequent and longer lasting outages, increased regulatory oversight, and lower customer satisfaction.  Also, to the extent that climate change adversely impacts the economic health of a region or results in energy conservation or demand side management programs, it may adversely impact customer demand and revenues.  Such physical or operational risks could have a material effect on Entergy’s, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’, System Energy’s, and the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

In September 2020, Entergy voluntarily committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Technology research and development, innovation, and advancement are critical to Entergy’s ability to achieve this commitment. Moreover, Entergy cannot predict the ultimate impact of achieving this objective, or the various implementation aspects, on its system reliability, or its results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Continued and future availability and quality of water for cooling, process, and sanitary uses could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.

Water is a vital natural resource that is also critical to the Utility operating companies’, System Energy’s, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ business operations.  Entergy’s facilities use water for cooling, boiler make-up, sanitary uses, potable supply, and many other uses.  Entergy’s Utility operating companies also own and/or operate hydroelectric facilities.  Accordingly, water availability and quality are critical to Entergy’s business operations.  Impacts to water availability or quality could negatively impact both operations and revenues.

Entergy secures water through various mechanisms (ground water wells, surface waters intakes, municipal supply, etc.) and operates under the provisions and conditions set forth by the provider and/or regulatory authorities.  Entergy also obtains and operates in substantial compliance with water discharge permits issued under various provisions of the Clean Water Act and/or state water pollution control provisions. Regulations and authorizations for both water intake and use and for waste discharge can become more stringent in times of water shortages, low flows in rivers, low lake levels, low groundwater aquifer volumes, and similar conditions.  The increased use of water by industry, agriculture, and the population at large, population growth, and the potential impacts of climate change on water resources may cause water use restrictions that affect Entergy and its subsidiaries.

306

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be adequately hedged against changes in commodity prices, which could materially affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

To manage near-term financial exposure related to commodity price fluctuations, Entergy and its subsidiaries, including the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, may enter into contracts to hedge portions of their purchase and sale commitments, fuel requirements, and inventories of natural gas, uranium and its conversion and enrichment, coal, refined products, and other commodities, within established risk management guidelines.  As part of this strategy, Entergy and its subsidiaries may utilize fixed- and variable-price forward physical purchase and sales contracts, futures, financial swaps, and option contracts traded in the over-the-counter markets or on exchanges.  However, Entergy and its subsidiaries normally cover only a portion of the exposure of their assets and positions to market price volatility, and the coverage will vary over time.  In addition, Entergy also elects to leave certain volumes during certain years unhedged.  To the extent Entergy and its subsidiaries have unhedged positions, fluctuating commodity prices can materially affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ results of operations and financial position.

Although Entergy and its subsidiaries devote a considerable effort to these risk management strategies, they cannot eliminate all the risks associated with these activities.  As a result of these and other factors, Entergy and its subsidiaries cannot predict with precision the impact that risk management decisions may have on their business, results of operations, or financial position.

Entergy’s over-the-counter financial derivatives are subject to rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that are designed to promote transparency, mitigate systemic risk, and protect against market abuse. Entergy cannot predict the impact any proposed or not fully-implemented final rules will have on its ability to hedge its commodity price risk or on over-the-counter derivatives markets as a whole, but such rules and regulations could have a material effect on Entergy's risk exposure, as well as reduce market liquidity and further increase the cost of hedging activities.

Entergy has guaranteed or indemnified the performance of a portion of the obligations relating to hedging and risk management activities.  Reductions in Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ credit quality or changes in the market prices of energy commodities could increase the cash or letter of credit collateral required to be posted in connection with hedging and risk management activities, which could materially affect Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ liquidity and financial position.

The Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties may not meet their obligations, which may materially affect the Utility operating companies and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

The hedging and risk management practices of the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties that owe Entergy and its subsidiaries money, energy, or other commodities will not perform their obligations.  Currently, some hedging agreements contain provisions that require the counterparties to provide credit support to secure all or part of their obligations to Entergy or its subsidiaries.  If the counterparties to these arrangements fail to perform, Entergy or its subsidiaries may enforce and recover the proceeds from the credit support provided and acquire alternative hedging arrangements, which credit support may not always be adequate to cover the related obligations.  In such event, Entergy and its subsidiaries might incur losses in addition to amounts, if any, already paid to the counterparties.  In addition, the credit commitments of Entergy’s lenders under its bank facilities may not be honored for a variety of reasons, including unexpected periods of financial distress affecting such lenders, which could materially affect the adequacy of its liquidity sources.

307

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Market performance and other changes may decrease the value of benefit plan assets, which then could require additional funding and result in increased benefit plan costs.

The performance of the capital markets affects the values of the assets held in trust under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans.  A decline in the market value of the assets may increase the funding requirements relating to Entergy’s benefit plan liabilities and also result in higher benefit costs. As the value of the assets decreases, the “expected return on assets” component of benefit costs decreases, resulting in higher benefits costs. Additionally, asset losses are incorporated into benefit costs over time, thus increasing benefits costs.  Volatility in the capital markets has affected the market value of these assets, which may affect Entergy’s planned levels of contributions in the future.  Additionally, changes in interest rates affect the liabilities under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans; as interest rates decrease, the liabilities increase, potentially requiring additional funding and recognition of higher liability carrying costs.  The funding requirements of the obligations related to the pension benefit plans can also increase as a result of changes in, among other factors, retirement rates, life expectancy assumptions, or Federal regulations.  For further information regarding Entergy’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans, refer to the “Critical Accounting Estimates– Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy and each of its Registrant Subsidiaries and Note 11 to the financial statements.

The litigation environment in the states in which certain Entergy subsidiaries operate poses a significant risk to those businesses.

Entergy and its subsidiaries are involved in the ordinary course of business in a number of lawsuits involving employment, commercial, asbestos, hazardous material and ratepayer matters, and injuries and damages issues, among other matters.  The states in which the Utility operating companies operate have proven to be unusually litigious environments.  Judges and juries in these states have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases.  Entergy and its subsidiaries use legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against them, but the litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk.

Terrorist attacks, cyber attacks, system failures or data breaches of Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ or our suppliers’ technology systems may adversely affect Entergy’s results of operations.

Entergy and its subsidiaries operate in a business that requires evolving information technology systems that include sophisticated data collection, processing systems, software, network infrastructure, and other technologies that are becoming more complex and may be subject to mandatory and prescriptive reliability and security standards. The functionality of Entergy’s technology systems depends on its own and its suppliers’ and their contractors’ technology. Suppliers’ and their contractors’ technology systems to which Entergy is connected directly or indirectly support a variety of business processes and activities to store sensitive data, including (i) intellectual property, (ii) proprietary business information, (iii) personally identifiable information of customers and employees, and (iv) data with respect to invoicing and the collection of payments, accounting, procurement, and supply chain activities. Any significant failure or malfunction of such information technology systems could result in loss of data or disruptions of operations.

There have been attacks and threats of attacks on energy infrastructure by cyber actors, including those associated with foreign governments. As an operator of critical infrastructure, Entergy and its subsidiaries face heightened risk of an act or threat of terrorism, cyber attacks, and data breaches, whether as a direct or indirect act against one of Entergy’s generation, transmission or distribution facilities, operations centers, infrastructure, or information technology systems used to manage, monitor, and transport power to customers and perform day-to-day business functions. An actual act could affect Entergy’s ability to operate, including its ability to operate the information technology systems and network infrastructure on which it relies to conduct business.

Given the rapid technological advancements of existing and emerging threats, Entergy’s technology systems remain inherently vulnerable despite implementations and enhancements of the multiple layers of security
308

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

and controls. If Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ technology systems were compromised and unable to detect or recover in a timely fashion to a normal state of operations, Entergy or its subsidiaries could be unable to perform critical business functions that are essential to the company’s well-being and could result in a loss of its confidential, sensitive, and proprietary information, including personal information of its customers, employees, suppliers, and others in Entergy’s care.

Any such attacks, failures or data breaches could have a material effect on Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ business, financial condition, results of operations or reputation. Although we purchase insurance coverage for cyber-attacks or data breaches, such insurance may not be adequate to cover all losses that might arise in connection with these events. Such events may also expose Entergy to an increased risk of litigation (and associated damages and fines).

(Entergy New Orleans)

The effect of higher purchased gas cost charges to customers taking gas service may adversely affect Entergy New Orleans’s results of operations and liquidity.

Gas rates charged to retail gas customers are comprised primarily of purchased gas cost charges, which provide no return or profit to Entergy New Orleans, and distribution charges, which provide a return or profit to the utility.  Distribution charges recover fixed costs on a volumetric basis and, thus, are affected by the amount of gas sold to customers.  When purchased gas cost charges increase due to higher gas procurement costs, customer usage may decrease, especially in weaker economic times, resulting in lower distribution charges for Entergy New Orleans, which could adversely affect results of operations. Purchased gas cost charges, which comprise most of a customer’s bill and may be adjusted monthly, represent gas commodity costs that Entergy New Orleans recovers from its customers.  Entergy New Orleans’s cash flows can be affected by differences between the time period when gas is purchased and the time when ultimate recovery from customers over ten years but stated thatoccurs.

(System Energy)

System Energy owns and, through an affiliate, operates a single nuclear generating facility, and it is dependent on sales to affiliated companies for all of its revenues. Certain contractual arrangements relating to System Energy, the LPSC may wantaffiliated companies, and these revenues are the subject of ongoing litigation and regulatory proceedings.

System Energy’s operating revenues are derived from the allocation of the capacity, energy, and related costs associated with its 90% ownership/leasehold interest in Grand Gulf.  Charges under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are paid by the Utility operating companies as consideration for their respective entitlements to consider 15 years; (4) allowed for recoveryreceive capacity and energy.  The useful economic life of carrying costsGrand Gulf is finite and earningis limited by the terms of its operating license, which expires in November 2044. System Energy’s financial condition depends both on the receipt of payments from the Utility operating companies under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and on the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is currently the subject of several litigation proceedings at the FERC, including a challenge with respect to System Energy’s uncertain tax positions, sale leaseback arrangement, authorized return on project costs, butequity and capital structure, and a request in a separate proceeding for FERC to initiate a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC has also authorized the filing of a prudence complaint at the FERC relating to Grand Gulf operations. Entergy cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings nor can it predict whether any outcome could have a reduced rate approximatingmaterial effect on Entergy’s or System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the proceedings. The Utility operating companies have agreed to implement certain protocols for providing retail regulators with information regarding rates billed under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

For information regarding the Unit Power Sales Agreement, the sale and leaseback transactions and certain other agreements relating to the Entergy System companies’ support of System Energy, see Notes 5 and 8 to the
309

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

financial statements and the “Utility - System Energy and Related Agreements” section of Part I, Item 1.

(Entergy Corporation)

As a holding company, Entergy Corporation depends on cash distributions from its subsidiaries to meet its debt service and other financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock.

Entergy Corporation is a holding company with no material revenue generating operations of its own or material assets other than the stock of its subsidiaries. Accordingly, all of its operations are conducted by its subsidiaries. Entergy Corporation’s ability to satisfy its financial obligations, including the payment of interest and principal on its outstanding debt, and to pay dividends on its common stock depends on the payment to it of dividends or distributions by its subsidiaries. The subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay any dividends or make distributions to Entergy Corporation. The ability of such subsidiaries to make payments of dividends or distributions to Entergy Corporation depends on their results of operations and cash flows and other items affecting retained earnings, and on any applicable legal, regulatory, or contractual limitations on subsidiaries’ ability to pay such dividends or distributions. Prior to providing funds to Entergy Corporation, such subsidiaries have financial and regulatory obligations that must be satisfied, including among others, debt service and, in the case of Entergy Utility Holding Company and Entergy Texas, dividends and distributions on preferred securities. Any distributions from the Registrant Subsidiaries other than Entergy Texas and System Energy are paid directly to Entergy Utility Holding Company and are therefore subject to prior payment of distributions on its preferred securities.


310


ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The COVID-19 Pandemic

See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

February 2021 Winter Storms

See the “February 2021 Winter Storms” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the February 2021 winter storms. Entergy Arkansas’s preliminary estimate for the cost of mobilizing crews and restoring power is approximately $10 million. Natural gas purchases for Entergy Arkansas for February 1st through 25th, 2021 are approximately $105 million compared to natural gas purchases for February 2020 of $10 million.

Results of Operations

2020 Compared to 2019

Net Income

Net income decreased $17.7 million primarily due to lower volume/weather, a formula rate plan provision recorded in 2020 to reflect the 2019 historical year netting adjustment, and higher depreciation and amortization expenses, partially offset by higher retail electric price and lower other operation and maintenance expenses. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the 2019 historical year netting adjustment.

Operating Revenues

Following is an analysis of the change in operating revenues comparing 2020 to 2019:
Amount
(In Millions)
2019 operating revenues$2,259.6 
Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income(278.5)
Volume/weather(72.2)
Retail electric price57.4 
Return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers118.2 
2020 operating revenues$2,084.5

Entergy Arkansas’s results include revenues from rate mechanisms designed to recover fuel, purchased power, and other costs such that the revenues and expenses associated with these items generally offset and do not affect net income. “Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income” includes the revenue variance associated with these items.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to a decrease of 1,069 GWh, or 5%, in billed electricity usage, including decreased commercial and industrial usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales, partially offset by an increase in residential usage as a
311

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

result of the COVID-19 pandemic. See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to the $56.5 million annual formula rate plan increase related to the 2020 projected test year included in the 2019 formula rate plan filing effective with the first billing cycle of January 2020. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the formula rate plan filing.

The return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers resulted from the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes through a tax adjustment rider beginning in April 2018. In 2020, $8.1 million was returned to customers as compared to $126.3 million in 2019. There is no effect on net income as the reduction in operating revenues in each period was offset by a reduction in income tax expense. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Other Income Statement Variances

Nuclear refueling outage expenses decreased primarily due to the amortization of lower costs associated with the most recent outages as compared to previous outages.

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $18.3 million in nuclear generation expenses primarily due to lower nuclear labor costs, including contract labor, in part as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;
a decrease of $13.2 million in non-nuclear generation expenses primarily due to lower long-term service agreement expenses;
an $11.2 million write-off in 2019 of specific costs related to the potential construction of scrubbers at the White Bluff plant. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the write-off;
higher nuclear insurance refunds of $7.8 million;
a decrease of $5.9 million primarily due to contract costs in 2019 related to initiatives to explore new customer products and services; and
a decrease of $5.8 million in energy efficiency costs.

The decrease was partially offset by the effects of recording in 2019 a final judgment to resolve claims in the ANO damages case against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. The damages awarded include the reimbursement of approximately $11.9 million of spent nuclear fuel storage costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service.

Other income increased primarily due to changes in decommissioning trust fund investment activity.

Other regulatory credits - net for 2020 includes a provision of $43.5 million to reflect the 2019 historical year netting adjustment included in the APSC’s December 2020 order in the 2020 formula rate plan proceeding. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the 2020 formula rate plan proceeding.

The effective income tax rates were 16.3% for 2020 and (21.6%) for 2019. The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of 21% for 2019 was primarily due to the amortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. See Notes 2 and 3 to the financial statements for a discussion of the effects and regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 21% to the effective income tax rates.

312

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Entergy Arkansas’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of results of operations for 2019 compared to 2018.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018 were as follows:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period$3,519 $119 $6,216 
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities659,818 677,766 211,825 
Investing activities(795,709)(676,293)(688,727)
Financing activities324,500 1,927 470,805 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents188,609 3,400 (6,097)
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$192,128 $3,519 $119 

2020 Compared to 2019

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $17.9 million in 2020 primarily due to:

the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs;
lower collections of receivables from customers, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
the timing of payments to vendors.

The decrease was partially offset by:

a decrease in the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers in 2020 as compared to 2019. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act;
$25 million in proceeds received from the DOE in 2020 resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously expensed. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation; and
a decrease of $15.8 million in pension contributions in 2020. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.


313

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Investing Activities

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $119.4 million in 2020 primarily due to:

an increase of $79.5 million in storm spending;
an increase of $47.3 million in non-nuclear generation construction expenditures primarily due to increased spending on various projects in 2020;
an increase of $39.4 million in nuclear construction expenditures primarily as a result of work performed in 2020 on various ANO 2 outage projects;
an increase of $38.5 million as a result of fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements in the Utility business, material and service deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle; and
an increase of $30.3 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to investment in the reliability and infrastructure of Entergy Arkansas’s distribution system, including increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure.

The increase was partially offset by:

a decrease of $56 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a lower scope of work performed in 2020 as compared to 2019; and
$55 million in proceeds received from the DOE in 2020 resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously capitalized. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Financing Activities

Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $322.6 million in 2020 primarily due to:

issuances of $100 million of 4.0% Series mortgage bonds in March 2020 and $675 million of 2.65% Series mortgage bonds in September 2020;
money pool activity;
a decrease of $41.6 million in net long-term repayments in 2020 on the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility; and
a decrease of $20 million in common equity distributions in 2020 in order to maintain Entergy Arkansas’s capital structure.

The increase was partially offset by:

the issuance of $350 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds in March 2019;
the repayment in October 2020 of $200 million of 4.90% Series mortgage bonds due December 2052; and
the repayment in October 2020 of $125 million of 4.75% Series mortgage bonds due June 2063.

Decreases in Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool decreased by $21.6 million in 2020 compared to decreasing by $161.1 million in 2019. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.

See Note 5 to the financial statements for further details of long-term debt.


314

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Cash Flow” in Item 7 of Entergy Arkansas’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2019 compared to 2018.

Capital Structure

Entergy Arkansas’s debt to capital ratio is shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital ratio is primarily due to the net issuances of long-term debt in 2020.
 December 31,
2020
December 31,
2019
Debt to capital54.8 %53.0 %
Effect of excluding the securitization bonds— %— %
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)54.8 %53.0 %
Effect of subtracting cash(1.2 %)— %
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)53.6 %53.0 %

(a)Calculation excludes the securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy Arkansas.

Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents. Debt consists of short-term borrowings, finance lease obligations, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion. Capital consists of debt and equity. Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents. Entergy Arkansas uses the debt to capital ratios excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes they provide useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Arkansas’s financial condition because the securitization bonds, which have been repaid as of December 31, 2020, were non-recourse to Entergy Arkansas, as more fully described in Note 5 to the financial statements. Entergy Arkansas also uses the net debt to net capital ratio excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Arkansas’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy Arkansas’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.

Entergy Arkansas seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also acknowledgingmaintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings.  To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a distribution, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the capital structure.  To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Arkansas may issue incremental debt or reduce distributions, or both, to maintain its capital structure.  In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as financing of large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing distributions, Entergy Arkansas may receive equity contributions to maintain its capital structure.

Uses of Capital

Entergy Arkansas requires capital resources for:

construction and other capital investments;
debt maturities or retirements;
working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel and purchased power costs; and
distribution and interest payments.

315

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Following are the amounts of Entergy Arkansas’s planned construction and other capital investments.
 202120222023
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:  
Generation$340 $355 $430 
Transmission40 45 190 
Distribution95 255 420 
Utility Support105 80 75 
Total$580 $735 $1,115 

Following are the amounts of Entergy Arkansas’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 20212022-20232024-2025After 2025Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)$611 $543 $581 $4,713 $6,448 
Operating leases (b)$14 $21 $15 $11 $61 
Finance leases (b)$3 $5 $3 $2 $13 
Purchase obligations (c)$452 $618 $509 $3,882 $5,461 

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.
(c)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Arkansas, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which are discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements.

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, Entergy Arkansas currently expects to contribute approximately $66.6 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $517 thousand to its other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2021, although the 2021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2021.  See “Critical Accounting Estimates– Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.

Also in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy Arkansas has $252 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions.  See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.

In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Arkansas includes specific investments in renewables such as the Searcy Solar Facility, Walnut Bend Solar Facility, and West Memphis Solar Facility; transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to enhance reliability and improve service to customers, including advanced meters and related investments; resource planning, including potential generation and renewables projects; system improvements; investments in ANO 1 and 2; software and security; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital. Management provides more information on long-term debt maturities in Note 5 to the financial statements.

316

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

As a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, Entergy Arkansas pays distributions from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.

Renewables

Searcy Solar Facility

In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas announced that it signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW solar energy facility that will be sited on approximately 800 acres in White County near Searcy, Arkansas.  The purchase is contingent upon, among other things, obtaining necessary approvals from applicable federal and state regulatory and permitting agencies.  The project is being constructed by a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources.  Entergy Arkansas will purchase the facility upon mechanical completion and after the other purchase contingencies have been met.  Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2021. In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the LPSC may consider ordering no return;transaction is in the public interest and (5) indicatedrequesting all necessary approvals. In September 2019 other parties filed testimony largely supporting the resource acquisition but disputing Entergy Arkansas’s proposed method of cost recovery. Entergy Arkansas filed its rebuttal testimony in October 2019. In February 2020, Entergy Arkansas, the Attorney General, and the APSC general staff filed a partial settlement agreement asking the APSC to approve, based on the record in the proceeding, all issues except certain issues that are submitted to the APSC for determination. In April 2020 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Louisiana should be directedArkansas’s acquisition of the Searcy Solar facility as being in the public interest, but declined to securitize project costs, if legally feasibleapprove Entergy Arkansas’s preferred cost recovery rider mechanism, finding instead, based on the particular facts and circumstances presented, that the formula rate plan rider was a sufficient recovery mechanism for this resource.

Walnut Bend Solar Facility

In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the purchase of the 100 MW Walnut Bend Solar Facility is in the public interest. Entergy Arkansas requested a decision by the APSC by June 15, 2021 and primarily requests cost recovery through the formula rate plan rider. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2021. Closing is expected to occur in 2022.

West Memphis Solar Facility

In January 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the purchase of the 180 MW West Memphis Solar Facility is in the public interest. Entergy Arkansas requested a decision by the APSC by September 7, 2021 and primarily requests cost recovery through the formula rate plan rider. Closing is expected to occur in 2023.

Sources of Capital

Entergy Arkansas’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
debt or preferred membership interest issuances, including debt issuances to refund or retire currently outstanding or maturing indebtedness;
capital contributions; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.

Entergy Arkansas may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest rates are favorable.

317

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

All debt and common and preferred membership interest issuances by Entergy Arkansas require prior regulatory approval.  Debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in Entergy Arkansas’s bond indentures and other agreements.  Entergy Arkansas has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.

Entergy Arkansas’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
2020201920182017
(In Thousands)
$3,110($21,634)($182,738)($166,137)

See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.

Entergy Arkansas has a credit facility in the amount of $150 million scheduled to expire in September 2024. Entergy Arkansas also has a $25 million credit facility scheduled to expire in April 2021.  The $150 million credit facility includes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against $5 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, 2020, there were no cash borrowings and no letters of credit outstanding under the credit facilities. In addition, Entergy Arkansas is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO. As of December 31, 2020, a $1 million letter of credit was outstanding under Entergy Arkansas’s uncommitted letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the credit facilities.

The Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity has a credit facility in the amount of $80 million scheduled to expire in September 2022.  As of December 31, 2020, $12.2 million in loans were outstanding under the credit facility for the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility.

Entergy Arkansas obtained authorization from the FERC through July 2022 for short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $250 million at any time outstanding and borrowings by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s short-term borrowing limits. The long-term securities issuances of Entergy Arkansas are limited to amounts authorized by the FERC. The APSC has concurrent jurisdiction over Entergy Arkansas’s first mortgage bond/secured issuances. Entergy Arkansas has obtained long-term financing authorization from the FERC that extends through July 2022. Entergy Arkansas has obtained first mortgage bond/secured financing authorization from the APSC that extends through December 2022.

State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery

Retail Rates

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2018 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2019 calendar year. The filing showed Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2019 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. Additionally, the filing included the first netting adjustment under the current formula rate plan for the historical test year 2017, reflecting the change in formula rate plan revenues associated with actual 2017 results when compared to the allowed rate of return on equity. The filing included a projected $73.4 millionrevenue deficiency for 2019 and a $95.6 million revenue deficiency for the 2017 historical test year, for a total revenue requirement of $169 million for this filing. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is
318

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to four percent of total revenue, which originally was $65.4 million but was increased to $66.7 million based upon the APSC staff’s updated calculation of 2018 revenue. In October 2018, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed joint motions to approve a partial settlement agreement as to certain factual issues and agreed to brief contested legal issues. In November 2018 the APSC held a hearing and was briefed on a contested legal issue. In December 2018 the APSC issued a decision related to the initial legal brief, approved the partial settlement agreement and $66.7 million revenue requirement increase, as well as Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan, with updated rates going into effect for the first billing cycle of January 2019.

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.  In October 2019 other parties in the proceeding filed their errors and objections requesting certain adjustments to Entergy Arkansas’s filing that would reduce or eliminate Entergy Arkansas’s proposed revenue change. Entergy Arkansas filed its response addressing the requested adjustments in October 2019. In its response, Entergy Arkansas accepted certain of the adjustments recommended by the General Staff of the APSC that would reduce the proposed formula rate plan rider revenue change to $14 million. Entergy Arkansas disputed the remaining adjustments proposed by the parties. In October 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed a unanimous settlement agreement with the other parties in the proceeding seeking APSC approval of a revised total formula rate plan rider revenue change of $10.1 million. In its July 2019 formula rate plan filing, Entergy Arkansas proposed to recover an $11.2 million regulatory asset, amortized over five years, associated with specific costs related to the potential construction of scrubbers at the White Bluff plant. Although Entergy Arkansas does not concede that the regulatory asset lacks merit, for purposes of reaching a settlement on the total formula rate plan rider amount, Entergy Arkansas agreed not to include the White Bluff scrubber regulatory asset cost in the 2019 formula rate plan filing or future filings. Entergy Arkansas recorded a write-off in 2019 of the $11.2 million White Bluff scrubber regulatory asset. In December 2019 the APSC approved the settlement as being in the public interest and approved Entergy Arkansas’s compliance tariff effective with the first billing cycle of January 2020.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2020 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2021 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2021, as amended through subsequent filings in the proceeding, and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2019. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 projected year is 8.22% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $64.3 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2019 historical year was 9.07% resulting in a $23.9 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2021 projected year and 2019 historical year netting adjustment was $88.2 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to $74.3 million. In October 2020 other parties in the proceeding filed their errors
319

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

and objections recommending certain adjustments, and Entergy Arkansas filed responsive testimony disputing these adjustments. As part of the formula rate plan tariff the calculation for the revenue constraint was updated based on actual revenues which had the effect of reducing the initially-proposed $74.3 million revenue requirement increase to $72.6 million. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC a unanimous settlement agreement reached with the other parties that resolved all but one issue. As a result of the settlement agreement, Entergy Arkansas’s requested revenue increase was $68.4 million, including a $44.5 million increase for the projected 2021 year and a $23.9 million netting adjustment. The remaining issue litigated concerned the methodology used to calculate the netting adjustment within the formula rate plan. In December 2020 the APSC issued an order rejecting the netting adjustment method used by Entergy Arkansas. Applying the approach ordered by the APSC changed the netting adjustment for the 2019 historical year from a $23.9 million deficiency to $43.5 million excess. Overall, the decision reduced Entergy Arkansas’s revenue adjustment for 2021 to $1 million. In December 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing of the APSC’s decision, and in January 2021 the APSC granted further consideration of Entergy Arkansas’s petition. Based on the progress of the proceeding to date, in December 2020, Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory liability of $43.5 million to reflect the netting adjustment for 2019, as included in the APSC’s December 2020 order, which would be returned to customers in 2021. Also with the formula rate plan filing, Entergy Arkansas is requesting an extension of the formula rate plan rider for a second five-year term. Decisions by the APSC on the netting adjustment rehearing and the extension are expected in March 2021.

Internal Restructuring

In November 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy Arkansas to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. In July 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed a settlement, reached by all parties in the APSC proceeding, resolving all issues. The APSC approved the settlement agreement and restructuring in August 2018. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Entergy Arkansas will credit retail customers $39.6 million over six years, beginning in 2019. Entergy Arkansas also received the required FERC and NRC approvals.
In November 2018, Entergy Arkansas undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $32.7 million.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. converted from an Arkansas corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Arkansas, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Arkansas Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Arkansas Power), and Entergy Arkansas Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Arkansas Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Property, Inc., and Entergy Arkansas Power then changed its name to Entergy Arkansas, LLC. Entergy Arkansas, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. The transaction was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

320

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Production Cost Allocation Rider

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section in Note 2 to the financial statements.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and purchased energy costs in monthly customer bills.  The rider utilizes the prior calendar-year energy costs and projected energy sales for the twelve-month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an energy cost rate, which is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over- or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy costs for the prior calendar year.  The energy cost recovery rider tariff also allows an interim rate request depending upon the level of over- or under-recovery of fuel and purchased energy costs.

In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its upcoming energy cost rate redetermination filing that was made in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate $65.9 million of incremental fuel and replacement energy costs incurred in 2013 as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information was available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. In February 2014 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance. In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed for a change in rates pursuant to its formula rate plan rider. In that proceeding, the APSC approved a settlement agreement agreed upon by the parties, including a provision that requires Entergy Arkansas to initiate a regulatory proceeding for the purpose of recovering funds currently withheld from rates and related to the stator incident, including the $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs previously noted, subject to certain timelines and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.

In March 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination.

In March 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01547 per kWh to $0.01882 per kWh. The Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual redetermination filing requesting that the APSC suspend the proposed tariff to investigate the amount of the redetermination or, alternatively, to allow recovery subject to refund. Among the reasons the Attorney General cited for suspension were questions pertaining to how Entergy Arkansas forecasted sales and potential implications of the Tax Act. Entergy Arkansas replied to the Attorney General’s filing and stated that, to the extent there are questions pertaining to its load forecasting or the operation of the energy cost recovery rider, those issues exceed the scope of the instant rate redetermination. Entergy Arkansas also stated that potential effects of the Tax Act are appropriately considered in the APSC’s separate proceeding regarding potential implications of the tax law. The APSC general staff filed a reply to the Attorney General’s filing and agreed that Entergy Arkansas’s filing complied with the terms of the energy cost recovery rider. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2018. Subsequently in April 2018 the APSC issued an order declining to suspend Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider rate and declining to require further investigation at that time of the issues suggested by the Attorney General in the
321

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

proceeding. Following a period of discovery, the Attorney General filed a supplemental response in October 2018 raising new issues with Entergy Arkansas’s March 2018 rate redetermination and asserting that $45.7 million of the increase should be collected subject to refund pending further investigation. Entergy Arkansas filed to dismiss the Attorney General’s supplemental response, the APSC general staff filed a motion to strike the Attorney General’s filing, and the Attorney General filed a supplemental response disputing Entergy Arkansas and the APSC staff’s filing. Applicable APSC rules and processes authorize its general staff to initiate periodic audits of Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider. In late-2018 the APSC general staff notified Entergy Arkansas it has initiated an audit of the 2017 fuel costs. The time in which the audit will be complete is uncertain at this time.

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.

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

Opportunity Sales Proceeding

In June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third quarter 2010,parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources; (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity; and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.   The LPSC’s complaint challenged sales made beginning in 2002 and requested refunds.  In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint arguing among other things that the System Agreement contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.  The FERC subsequently ordered a hearing in the proceeding.

After a hearing, the ALJ issued an initial decision in December 2010.  The ALJ found that the System Agreement allowed for Entergy Arkansas to make the sales to third parties but concluded that the sales should be accounted for in the same manner as joint account sales.  The ALJ concluded that “shareholders” should make refunds of the damages to the Utility operating companies, along with interest.  Entergy disagreed with several aspects of the ALJ’s initial decision and in January 2011 filed with the FERC exceptions to the decision.

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith.  The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated
322

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

with such opportunity sales as part of its load but provides a different allocation authority.  The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  The FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to quantify the effect of repricing the opportunity sales in accordance with the FERC’s June 2012 decision. The hearing was held in May 2013 and the ALJ issued an initial decision in August 2013. The LPSC, the APSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions. Entergy filed a brief on exceptions requesting that the FERC reverse the initial decision and a brief opposing certain exceptions taken by the LPSC and FERC staff.

In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denied Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirmed the FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order denying all of the remaining requests for rehearing of the April 2016 order. In November 2017, Entergy Services filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit of the FERC’s orders in the first two phases of the opportunity sales case. In December 2017 the D.C. Circuit granted Entergy Services’ request to hold the appeal in abeyance pending final resolution of the related proceeding before the FERC. In January 2018 the APSC and the LPSC filed separate petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit, and the D.C. Circuit consolidated the appeals with Entergy Services’ appeal.

The hearing required by the FERC’s April 2016 order was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision addressing whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and whether to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties.

Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which included interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, and a deferred fuel regulatory asset of $75 million. Following its assessment of the course of the proceedings, including the FERC’s denial of rehearing in
323

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

November 2017 described above, in the fourth quarter 2017, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional liability of $35 million and a regulatory asset of $31 million.

In October 2018 the FERC issued an order addressing the ALJ’s July 2017 initial decision. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision to cap the reduction in Entergy Arkansas’s payment to account for the increased bandwidth payments that Entergy Arkansas made to the other operating companies. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that Grand Gulf sales from January through September 2000 should be included in the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. The FERC affirmed on other grounds the ALJ’s rejection of the LPSC’s claim that certain joint account sales should be accounted for as part of the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. In November 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2018 decision. In December 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing. In January 2020 the LPSC appealed the December 2019 decision to the D.C. Circuit.

In December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order. 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. Refunds and interest in the following amounts were paid by Entergy Arkansas to the other operating companies in December 2018:
 Total refunds including interest
Payment/(Receipt)
 (In Millions)
PrincipalInterestTotal
Entergy Arkansas$68$67$135
Entergy Louisiana($30)($29)($59)
Entergy Mississippi($18)($18)($36)
Entergy New Orleans($3)($4)($7)
Entergy Texas($17)($16)($33)

Entergy Arkansas previously recognized a regulatory asset with a balance of $116 million as of December 31, 2018 for a portion of the payments due as a result of this proceeding.

As described above, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing was completed in September 2020 and oral argument was heard in December 2020.

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 November 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s complaint. The order concluded that the settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015 terminating the System Agreement barred the LPSC’s new complaint. In December 2019 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s November 2019 order, and in July 2020 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request for rehearing. In September 2020 the LPSC appealed to the D.C. Circuit the FERC’s orders dismissing the new opportunity sales complaint. In November 2020 the D.C. Circuit issued an order establishing that briefing will occur in January 2021 through April 2021.

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
324

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

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. In January 2020 the APSC adopted a procedural schedule with a hearing in April 2020. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion seeking to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s application alleging that the APSC, in a prior proceeding, ruled on the issues addressed in the application and determined that Entergy Arkansas’s requested relief violates the filed rate doctrine and the prohibition against retroactive ratemaking. Entergy Arkansas responded to the joint motion in February 2020 rebutting these arguments, including demonstrating that the claims in this proceeding differ substantially from those the APSC addressed previously and that the payment resulting from a FERC tariff violation for which Entergy Arkansas seeks retail cost recovery in this proceeding differs materially from the refunds resulting from a FERC tariff amendment that the APSC previously rejected on filed rate doctrine and the retroactive ratemaking grounds. In addition, in January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony.

In July 2020 the APSC issued a decision finding that Entergy Arkansas’s application is not in the public interest. The order also directed Entergy Arkansas to refund to its retail customers within 30 days of the order the FERC-determined over-collection of $13.7 million, plus interest, associated with a recalculated bandwidth remedy. In addition to these primary findings, the order also denied the Attorney General’s request for Entergy Arkansas to prepare a compliance filing detailing all of the retail impacts from the opportunity sales and denied a request by the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers to recalculate all costs using the revised responsibility ratio. Entergy Arkansas filed a motion for temporary stay of the 30-day requirement to allow Entergy Arkansas a reasonable opportunity to seek rehearing of the APSC order, but in July 2020 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for a stay and directed Entergy Arkansas to refund to its retail customers the component of the total FERC-determined opportunity sales payment that was associated with increased bandwidth remedy payments of $13.7 million, plus interest. The refunds were issued in the August 2020 billing cycle. While the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s stay request, Entergy Arkansas believes its actions were prudent and, therefore, the costs, including the $13.7 million, plus interest, are recoverable. In July 2020, Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the APSC order, which rehearing was denied by the APSC in August 2020. In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of these payments. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint, to which Entergy Arkansas responded. Also in December 2020, Entergy Arkansas and the APSC held a pre-trial conference, and filed a report with the court in January 2021. The court scheduled a hearing for February 26, 2021 regarding issues addressed in the pre-trial conference report.

Net Metering Legislation

An Arkansas law was enacted effective July 2019 that, among other things, expands the definition of a “net metering customer” to include two additional types of customers: (1) customers that lease net metering facilities, subject to certain leasing arrangements, and (2) government entities or other entities exempt from state and federal income taxes that enter into a service contract for a net metering facility. The latter provision would allow eligible entities, many of whom are small and large general service customers, to purchase renewable energy directly from third party providers and receive bill credits for these purchases. The APSC was given authority under this law to address certain matters, such as cost shifting and the appropriate compensation for net metered energy and has initiated proceedings for this purpose. Because of the size and number of customers eligible under this new law, there is a risk of loss of load and the shifting of costs to customers. A hearing was held in December 2019, with utilities, cooperatives, the Arkansas Attorney General, industrial customers, and Entergy Arkansas advocating the need for establishment of a reasonable rate structure that takes into account impacts to non-net metering customers; an additional hearing was conducted in February 2020 for purposes of public comment only. The APSC issued an order in June 2020, and in July 2020 several parties, including Entergy Arkansas, filed for rehearing on multiple
325

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

grounds, including for the reasons that it imposes an unreasonable rate structure and allows facilities to net meter that do not meet the statutory definition of net metering facilities. After granting the rehearing requests, the APSC issued an order in September 2020 largely upholding its June 2020 order. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas and several other parties filed an appeal of the APSC’s September 2020 order.

Separately, as directed by the APSC general staff, the APSC opened a proceeding to compel utilities to amend their net metering tariffs to incorporate the provisions of the legislation that the APSC general staff considered “black letter law.” Entergy Arkansas, the Arkansas Attorney General, and other intervenors opposed this directive pending the development of the rules for implementation that are being considered in the separate net metering rulemaking docket. Nevertheless, reserving its rights, Entergy Arkansas has complied with the directive to amend its tariffs. Asserting procedural and due process violations, in January 2020, Entergy Arkansas and the Arkansas Attorney General separately appealed certain APSC orders in the proceeding.

COVID-19 Orders

In April 2020, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the APSC issued an order requiring utilities, to the extent they had not already done so, to suspend service disconnections during the remaining pendency of the Arkansas Governor’s emergency declaration or until the APSC rescinds the directive. The order also authorizes utilities to establish a regulatory asset to record costs resulting from the suspension of service disconnections, directs that in future proceedings the APSC will consider whether the request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, and requires utilities to track and report the costs and any savings directly attributable to suspension of disconnects. In May 2020 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas expanding deferred payment agreements to assist customers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Quarterly reporting began in August 2020 and the APSC ordered additional reporting in October 2020 regarding utilities’ transitional plans for ending the moratorium on service disconnects. In February 2021 the APSC issued an order finding that it is not in the public interest to immediately lift the moratorium on service disconnects, but to announce a target date of May 3, 2021. In March 2021 the APSC will issue an order either confirming the lifting of the moratorium on service disconnects or extending the moratorium. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of $10.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Federal Regulation

See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation– Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.

Nuclear Matters

Entergy Arkansas owns and, through an affiliate, operates the ANO 1 and ANO 2 nuclear power plants. Entergy Arkansas is, therefore, subject to the risks related to owning and operating nuclear plants. These include risks related to: the use, storage, and handling and disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive materials; the substantial financial requirements, both for capital investments and operational needs, to position Entergy’s nuclear fleet to meet its operational goals; the performance and capacity factors of these nuclear plants including the financial requirements to address emerging issues like stress corrosion cracking of certain materials within the plant systems; regulatory requirements and potential future regulatory changes, including changes affecting the regulations governing nuclear plant ownership, operations, license amendments, and decommissioning; the availability of interim or permanent sites for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, including the fees charged for such disposal; the sufficiency of nuclear decommissioning trust fund assets and earnings to complete decommissioning of each site when required; and limitations on the amounts and types of insurance commercially available for losses in connection with nuclear plant operations and catastrophic events such as a nuclear accident. In the event of an unanticipated early shutdown of either ANO 1 or ANO 2, Entergy Arkansas may be required to
326

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

file with the APSC a rate mechanism to provide additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning. ANO 1’s operating license expires in 2034 and ANO 2’s operating license expires in 2038.

Environmental Risks

Entergy Arkansas’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.  Management believes that Entergy Arkansas is in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted in “Regulation of Entergy’s Business - Environmental Regulation” in Part I, Item 1.  Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance costs cannot be precisely estimated.

Critical Accounting Estimates

The preparation of Entergy Arkansas’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to apply appropriate accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that can have a significant effect on reported financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.  Management has identified the following accounting policies and estimates as critical because they are based on assumptions and measurements that involve a high degree of uncertainty, and the potential for future changes in the assumptions and measurements that could produce estimates that would have a material effect on the presentation of Entergy Arkansas’s financial position or results of operations.

In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liabilities for ANO 1 and ANO 2 as a result of a revised decommissioning cost study. The revised estimates resulted in a $126.2 million increase in its decommissioning cost liabilities, along with corresponding increases in the related asset retirement cost assets that will be depreciated over the remaining lives of the units.

Nuclear Decommissioning Costs

See “Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates inherent in accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs.

Utility Regulatory Accounting

See “Utility Regulatory Accounting” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of accounting for the effects of rate regulation.

Impairment of Long-lived Assets

See “Impairment of Long-lived Assets” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the impairment of long-lived assets.

Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions

See “Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.

327

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits

Entergy Arkansas’s qualified pension and other postretirement reported costs, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are impacted by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms.   See the “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.  Because of the complexity of these calculations, the long-term nature of these obligations, and the importance of the assumptions utilized, Entergy’s estimate of these costs is a critical accounting estimate.

Costs and Sensitivities

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension cost and qualified projected benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Qualified Pension CostImpact on 2020 Qualified Projected Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$2,406$46,791
Rate of return on plan assets(0.25%)$2,914$—
Rate of increase in compensation0.25%$1,838$8,922

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Postretirement Benefit CostImpact on 2020 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$174$6,576
Health care cost trend0.25%$225$4,516

Each fluctuation above assumes that the other components of the calculation are held constant.

Costs and Employer Contributions

Total qualified pension cost for Entergy Arkansas in 2020 was $81.7 million, including $21.1 million in settlement costs.  Entergy Arkansas anticipates 2021 qualified pension cost to be $61.6 million. Entergy Arkansas contributed $60 million to its qualified pension plans in 2020 and estimates pension contributions will be approximately $66.6 million in 2021, although the 2021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2021.

Total other postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income for Entergy Arkansas in 2020 was $10.1 million.  Entergy Arkansas expects 2021 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income of approximately $11.1 million.  Entergy Arkansas contributed $2.2 million to its other postretirement plans in 2020 and estimates 2021 contributions will be approximately $517 thousand.

328

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Other Contingencies

See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.

New Accounting Pronouncements

See “New Accounting Pronouncements” section of Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.
329

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the member and Board of Directors of
Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows and changes in member’s equity (pages 332 through 336 and applicable items in pages 51 through 238), for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2020, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Critical Audit Matter

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Rate and Regulatory Matters —Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries — Refer to Note 2 to the financial statements

Critical Audit Matter Description

The Company is subject to rate regulation by the Arkansas Public Service Commission (the “APSC”), which has jurisdiction with respect to the rates of electric companies in Arkansas, and to wholesale rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Management has determined it meets the requirements under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America to prepare its financial statements applying the specialized rules to account for the effects of cost-based rate regulation. Accounting for the economics of rate regulation impacts multiple financial statement line items and disclosures, such as property, plant, and equipment;
330

regulatory assets and liabilities; income taxes; operating revenues; operation and maintenance expense; and depreciation and amortization expense.

The Company’s rates are subject to regulatory rate-setting processes and annual earnings oversight. Because the APSC and the FERC set the rates the Company is allowed to charge customers based on allowable costs, including a reasonable return on equity, the Company applies accounting standards that require the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation, including the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities. The Company assesses whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in applicable regulatory and political environments. While the Company has indicated it expects to recover costs from customers through regulated rates, there is a risk that the APSC and the FERC will not approve: (1) full recovery of the costs of providing utility service, or (2) full recovery of amounts invested in the utility business and a reasonable return on that investment.

We identified the impact of rate regulation as a critical audit matter due to the significant judgments made by management to support its assertions about impacted account balances and disclosures and the high degree of subjectivity involved in assessing the impact of future regulatory orders on the financial statements. Management judgments include assessing the likelihood of recovery in future rates of incurred costs, including costs related to the Opportunity Sales Proceeding and refunds to customers. Auditing management’s judgments regarding the outcome of future decisions by the APSC and the FERC, involved especially subjective judgment and specialized knowledge of accounting for rate regulation and the rate setting process.

How the Critical Audit Matter Was Addressed in the Audit

Our audit procedures related to the uncertainty of future decisions by the APSC and the FERC included the following, among others:

We tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the evaluation of the likelihood of (1) the recovery in future rates of costs incurred as property, plant, and equipment and deferred as regulatory assets, and (2) a refund or a future reduction in rates that should be reported as regulatory liabilities. We also tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the initial recognition of amounts as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets or liabilities; and the monitoring and evaluation of regulatory developments that may affect the likelihood of recovering costs in future rates or of a future reduction in rates.
We evaluated the Company’s disclosures related to the impacts of rate regulation, including the balances recorded and regulatory developments.
We read relevant regulatory orders issued by the APSC and the FERC for the Company and other public utilities, regulatory statutes, interpretations, procedural memorandums, filings made by intervenors, and other publicly available information to assess the likelihood of recovery in future rates or of a future reduction in rates based on precedents of the APSC’s and the FERC’s treatment of similar costs under similar circumstances. We evaluated the external information and compared to management’s recorded regulatory asset and liability balances for completeness.
For regulatory matters in process, including the Opportunity Sales Proceeding, we inspected the Company’s filings with the APSC and the FERC, including the annual formula rate plan filing, and considered the filings with the APSC and the FERC by intervenors that may impact the Company’s future rates, for any evidence that might contradict management’s assertions.
We obtained an analysis from management and support from internal and external legal counsel, as appropriate, regarding probability of recovery for regulatory assets or refund or future reduction in rates for regulatory liabilities not yet addressed in a regulatory order, including the Opportunity Sales Proceeding, to assess management’s assertion that amounts are probable of recovery or a future reduction in rates.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 2021

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2001.

331


ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING REVENUES   
Electric$2,084,494 $2,259,594 $2,060,643 
OPERATING EXPENSES   
Operation and Maintenance:   
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale271,896 458,907 517,245 
Purchased power187,690 204,640 252,390 
Nuclear refueling outage expenses55,737 68,769 77,915 
Other operation and maintenance669,518 720,217 724,831 
Decommissioning73,319 68,030 60,420 
Taxes other than income taxes121,057 115,869 104,771 
Depreciation and amortization338,029 307,351 292,649 
Other regulatory credits - net(35,310)(11,186)(14,807)
TOTAL1,681,936 1,932,597 2,015,414 
OPERATING INCOME402,558 326,997 45,229 
OTHER INCOME   
Allowance for equity funds used during construction15,019 15,499 16,557 
Interest and investment income35,579 26,020 25,406 
Miscellaneous - net(21,908)(18,566)(14,874)
TOTAL28,690 22,953 27,089 
INTEREST EXPENSE   
Interest expense144,834 140,087 124,459 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction(6,595)(6,332)(7,781)
TOTAL138,239 133,755 116,678 
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES293,009 216,195 (44,360)
Income taxes47,777 (46,769)(297,067)
NET INCOME245,232 262,964 252,707 
Preferred dividend requirements1,249 
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON EQUITY$245,232 $262,964 $251,458 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   


332


ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES   
Net income$245,232 $262,964 $252,707 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:
Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning, including nuclear fuel amortization490,457 465,299 443,698 
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued87,019 94,368 129,524 
Changes in assets and liabilities:   
Receivables(24,507)(58,077)4,294 
Fuel inventory(10,066)(10,597)6,210 
Accounts payable(22,773)3,059 (126,405)
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued24,942 9,568 
Interest accrued(43)3,895 678 
Deferred fuel costs(1,186)72,560 43,869 
Other working capital accounts(11,061)18,783 (30,118)
Provisions for estimated losses6,289 14,901 14,250 
Other regulatory assets(165,534)(131,873)32,460 
Other regulatory liabilities106,878 39,293 (341,682)
Pension and other postretirement liabilities42,576 5,831 (40,157)
Other assets and liabilities(83,469)(127,582)(187,071)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities659,818 677,766 211,825 
INVESTING ACTIVITIES   
Construction expenditures(775,595)(641,525)(660,044)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction15,019 15,306 17,013 
Nuclear fuel purchases(100,678)(54,344)(99,417)
Proceeds from sale of nuclear fuel30,638 22,782 54,810 
Proceeds from nuclear decommissioning trust fund sales321,360 317,377 300,801 
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust funds(336,392)(336,519)(315,163)
Payment for purchase of assets(5,988)
Changes in money pool receivable - net(3,110)
Litigation proceeds for reimbursement of spent nuclear fuel storage costs55,001 
Insurance proceeds14,790 
Other4,036 630 (1,517)
Net cash flow used in investing activities(795,709)(676,293)(688,727)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES   
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt1,071,121 834,038 958,434 
Retirement of long-term debt(632,175)(548,952)(690,488)
Capital contribution from parent350,000 
Redemption of preferred stock(32,660)
Change in money pool payable - net(21,634)(161,104)16,601 
Changes in short-term borrowings - net(49,974)
Distributions/dividends paid:   
Common equity(95,000)(115,000)(91,751)
Preferred stock(1,606)
Other2,188 (7,055)12,249 
Net cash flow provided by financing activities324,500 1,927 470,805 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents188,609 3,400 (6,097)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period3,519 119 6,216 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$192,128 $3,519 $119 
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:  
Cash paid (received) during the period for:   
Interest - net of amount capitalized$140,735 $131,134 $118,731 
Income taxes($21,971)($33,989)$44,393 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

333


ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT ASSETS  
Cash and cash equivalents:  
Cash$24,108 $3,519 
Temporary cash investments168,020 
Total cash and cash equivalents192,128 3,519 
Securitization recovery trust account4,036 
Accounts receivable:  
Customer183,719 117,679 
Allowance for doubtful accounts(18,334)(1,169)
Associated companies34,216 29,178 
Other35,845 117,653 
Accrued unbilled revenues109,000 108,489 
Total accounts receivable344,446 371,830 
Fuel inventory - at average cost43,811 33,745 
Materials and supplies - at average cost237,640 211,320 
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs32,692 48,875 
Prepayments and other13,296 14,096 
TOTAL864,013 687,421 
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
Decommissioning trust funds1,273,921 1,101,283 
Other341 345 
TOTAL1,274,262 1,101,628 
UTILITY PLANT  
Electric12,905,322 12,293,483 
Construction work in progress234,213 197,775 
Nuclear fuel163,044 195,547 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT13,302,579 12,686,805 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization5,255,355 5,019,826 
UTILITY PLANT - NET8,047,224 7,666,979 
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
Regulatory assets:  
Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $0 as of December 31, 2020 and $1,706 as of December 31, 2019)1,832,384 1,666,850 
Deferred fuel costs68,220 67,690 
Other14,028 15,065 
TOTAL1,914,632 1,749,605 
TOTAL ASSETS$12,100,131 $11,205,633 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

334

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Currently maturing long-term debt$485,000 $0 
Accounts payable:  
Associated companies59,448 111,785 
Other208,591 202,201 
Customer deposits98,506 101,411 
Taxes accrued81,837 81,831 
Interest accrued22,745 22,788 
Deferred fuel costs53,065 53,721 
Current portion of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes9,296 
Other40,628 38,760 
TOTAL1,049,820 621,793 
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued1,286,123 1,183,126 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits30,500 31,701 
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net467,031 478,174 
Other regulatory liabilities686,872 559,555 
Decommissioning1,314,160 1,242,616 
Accumulated provisions70,169 63,880 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities361,682 319,075 
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $0 as of December 31, 2020 and $6,772 as of December 31, 2019)3,482,507 3,517,208 
Other75,098 62,568 
TOTAL7,774,142 7,457,903 
Commitments and Contingencies00
EQUITY  
Member's equity3,276,169 3,125,937 
TOTAL3,276,169 3,125,937 
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY$12,100,131 $11,205,633 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

335


ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN MEMBER'S EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
Member's Equity
(In Thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2017$2,376,754 
Net income252,707 
Capital contributions from parent350,000 
Common equity distributions(91,751)
Non-cash contribution from parent94,335 
Preferred stock dividends(1,249)
Other2,307 
Balance at December 31, 2018$2,983,103 
Net income262,964 
Common equity distributions(115,000)
Other(5,130)
Balance at December 31, 2019$3,125,937 
Net income245,232 
Common equity distributions(95,000)
Balance at December 31, 2020$3,276,169 
See Notes to Financial Statements.

336


ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
 20202019201820172016
 (In Thousands)
Operating revenues$2,084,494 $2,259,594 $2,060,643 $2,139,919 $2,086,608 
Net income$245,232 $262,964 $252,707 $139,844 $167,212 
Total assets$12,100,131 $11,205,633 $10,401,596 $10,134,029 $9,606,117 
Long-term obligations (a)$3,482,507 $3,517,208 $3,225,759 $2,983,749 $2,746,435 
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt) and preferred stock without sinking fund.
 20202019201820172016
 (Dollars In Millions)
Electric Operating Revenues:     
Residential$841 $795 $807 $768 $789 
Commercial466 539 426 495 495 
Industrial462 521 434 472 446 
Governmental18 21 17 19 18 
Total billed retail1,787 1,876 1,684 1,754 1,748 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies105 118 104 128 49 
Non-associated companies68 140 145 121 118 
Other124 126 128 137 172 
Total$2,084 $2,260 $2,061 $2,140 $2,087 
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh):    
Residential7,584 7,996 8,248 7,298 7,618 
Commercial5,356 5,822 5,967 5,825 5,988 
Industrial7,586 7,759 8,071 7,528 6,795 
Governmental223 241 239 237 237 
Total retail20,749 21,818 22,525 20,888 20,638 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies1,659 2,180 1,773 1,782 1,609 
Non-associated companies4,198 7,206 6,447 6,549 7,115 
Total26,606 31,204 30,745 29,219 29,362 

337


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The COVID-19 Pandemic

See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta

In August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $2.0 billion, including approximately $1.67 billion in capital costs and approximately $330 million in non-capital costs. This estimate includes all costs to restore power and repair or replace the damages from the hurricanes, except for the cost to repair or replace damage incurred to an Entergy Louisiana determinedtransmission line in southeast Louisiana, and the amount of that it was probable thatcost could be significant. The restoration plan for this transmission line and the Little Gypsy repowering project wouldrelated cost estimate is still being evaluated. Also, Entergy Louisiana’s revenues were adversely affected in 2020, primarily due to power outages resulting from the hurricanes. Entergy Louisiana is considering all reasonable avenues to recover storm-related costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta, including securitization. Storm cost recovery or financing will be abandonedsubject to review by applicable regulatory authorities.

Entergy Louisiana recorded accounts payable and accordingly reclassified $199.8 million of project costs fromcorresponding construction work in progress and regulatory assets for the estimated costs incurred that were necessary to areturn customers to service. Entergy Louisiana recorded the regulatory asset. A hearingassets in accordance with its accounting policies and based on the issues, excepthistoric treatment of such costs in its service area because management believes that recovery through some form of regulatory mechanism is probable. There are well established mechanisms and precedent for cost allocation among customer classes, was held before the ALJaddressing these catastrophic events and providing for recovery of prudently incurred storm costs in November 2010. In January 2011 all parties participated in a mediation on the disputed issues, resulting in a settlement of all disputed issues, including cost recoveryaccordance with applicable regulatory and cost allocation. The settlement provides forlegal principles. Because Entergy Louisiana has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, $200 million asor the timing of March 31, 2011, and carrying costs on that amount on specified terms thereafter. The settlement also provides for Entergy Louisiana to recover the approved project costs by securitization. such recovery.

In April 2011,October 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an application withat the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments to authorize the securitizationfacilitate issuance of the investment recoveryshorter-term bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with the projectHurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and to issue a financing order by whichHurricane Zeta. Subsequently, Entergy Louisiana could accomplish such securitization.and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion seeking approval to exclude from the derivation of Entergy Louisiana’s capital structure and cost rate of debt for ratemaking purposes, including the allowance for funds used during construction, shorter-term debt up to $1.1 billion issued by Entergy Louisiana to fund costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta costs on an interim basis. In August 2011November 2020 the LPSC issued an order approving the settlementjoint motion, and alsoEntergy Louisiana issued $1.1 billion of 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023. Also in November 2020, Entergy Louisiana drew $257 million from its funded storm reserves.


In December 2020, Entergy Louisiana provided the LPSC with notification that it intends to initiate a storm cost recovery proceeding in the near future, which will permit the LPSC to retain any outside consultants and counsel needed to review the storm cost recovery application. In February 2021 the LPSC voted to retain outside counsel and consultants to assist in the review of Entergy Louisiana’s upcoming storm cost recovery application, which is expected to be filed in March 2021.
337
338

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



February 2021 Winter Storms
issued
See the “February 2021 Winter Storms” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a financing orderdiscussion of the February 2021 winter storms. Entergy Louisiana’s preliminary estimate for the securitization.cost of mobilizing crews and restoring power is approximately $50 million to $60 million. Natural gas purchases for Entergy Louisiana for February 1st through 25th, 2021 are approximately $190 million compared to natural gas purchases for February 2020 of $39 million.

Results of Operations

2020 Compared to 2019

Net Income

Net income increased $390.8 million primarily due to the $382.8 million reduction in deferred income tax expense related to the basis of assets contributed in the 2015 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana business combination as a result of the resolution of the 2014-2015 IRS audit in the fourth quarter 2020 and the $58 million reduction in income tax expense resulting from an IRS settlement in the first quarter 2020 related to the uncertain tax position regarding the Hurricane Isaac Louisiana Act 55 financing, which also resulted in a $29 million ($21 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge to reflect Entergy Louisiana’s agreement to share the savings with customers. Also contributing to the increase were higher retail electric price, lower other operation and maintenance expenses, and a lower effective income tax rate. The increase was partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses, lower volume/weather, lower other income, higher interest expense, and higher taxes other than income taxes. See Note 53 to the financial statements for afurther discussion of the September 2011 issuancetax audit resolution and the tax settlement.

Operating Revenues

Following is an analysis of the securitization bonds.change in operating revenues comparing 2020 to 2019:

Amount
(In Millions)
2019 operating revenues$4,285.2 
Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income(330.3)
Volume/weather(68.8)
Return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers7.5 
Retail electric price176.3 
2020 operating revenues$4,069.9

StateEntergy Louisiana’s results include revenues from rate mechanisms designed to recover fuel, purchased power, and Local Rate Regulationother costs such that the revenues and Fuel-Cost Recoveryexpenses associated with these items generally offset and do not affect net income. “Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income” includes the revenue variance associated with these items.


The rates that Entergy Louisiana charges for its services significantly influence its financial position, resultsvolume/weather variance is primarily due to decreased commercial and industrial usage as a result of operations,the COVID-19 pandemic, the effects of Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and liquidity. Entergy Louisiana is regulatedHurricane Zeta on sales, and the rates charged to its customers are determined in regulatory proceedings. A governmental agency, the LPSC, is primarily responsible for approvaleffect of less favorable weather on residential sales, partially offset by increased residential usage as a result of the rates charged to customers.

Retail Rates - Electric

Filings with the LPSC

2014 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint, formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations.COVID-19 pandemic. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue was required. The following adjustments were required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million;industrial usage is partially offset by an increase in demand from expansion projects, primarily in the additional capacity mechanismtransportation and chemicals industries. See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completiondiscussion of the prescribed review period, rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of this proceeding with no changes to rates already implemented.

2015 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.07%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue was required. The following other adjustments, however, were required under the formula rate plan: an increase in the legacy Entergy Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $14.2 million; a separate increase in legacy Entergy Louisiana revenue of $10 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; an increase in the legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $0.5 million; a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenue of $58.7 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; and an increase of $11 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2016, subject to refund. Following implementation of the as-filed rates in September 2016, there were several interim updates to Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan, including the one submitted in December 2016, reflecting implementation of the settlement of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project prudence review described below. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of the May 2016 evaluation report, interim updates, and corresponding proceedings with no changes to rates already implemented.

Extension of MISO Cost Recovery Mechanism Rider

In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC a request to extend the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider provision of its formula rate plan. In March 2017 the LPSC staff submitted direct testimony generally supportive of a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism and the intervenor in the proceeding did not

338
339

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



oppose an extensionCOVID-19 pandemic. See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for this period of time. In July 2017 an uncontested joint stipulation authorizing a one-year extensiondiscussion of the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider was approved.storms.


2016 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed itsThe return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers resulted from the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes through changes in the formula rate plan evaluation reporteffective May 2018. In 2020, $31.1 million was returned to customers as compared to $38.6 million in 2019. There was no effect on net income as the reduction in operating revenues was offset by a reduction in income tax expense. See Note 2 to the financial statements for its 2016 calendar year operations. further discussion of regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The evaluation report reflectedretail electric price variance is primarily due to an earned return on common equity of 9.84%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue was required. Adjustments, however, were required under the formula rate plan; the 2016 formula rate plan evaluation report showed a decreaseincrease in formula rate plan revenues effective June 2019 due to the inclusion of the first-year revenue requirement for the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and effective April 2020 due to the inclusion of approximately $16.9 million, comprised of a decreasethe first-year revenue requirement for the Lake Charles Power Station and increases in legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $3.5 million, a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $9.7 million,revenues effective September 2019 and a decrease in incremental formula rate plan revenue of $3.7 million. Additionally, the formula rate plan evaluation report called for a decrease of $40.5 million in the MISO cost recovery revenue requirement from the present level of $46.8 million to $6.3 million. Rates reflecting these adjustments were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2017, subject to refund. In September 2017 the LPSC issued its report indicating that no changes to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report were required but reserved for several issues, including Entergy Louisiana’s September 2017 update to its formula rate plan evaluation report.

Formula Rate Plan Extension Request

In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with the LPSC seeking to extend its formula rate plan for three years (2017-2019) with limited modifications to its terms.  Those modifications include: a one-time resetting of base rates2020. See Note 2 to the midpoint of the band at Entergy Louisiana’s authorized return on equity of 9.95%financial statements for the 2017 test year; narrowingfurther discussion of the formula rate plan bandwidthproceedings.

Other Income Statement Variances

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $10.2 million in nuclear generation expenses primarily due to a lower scope of work performed in 2020 as compared to 2019, in part as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;
a decrease of $9.5 million primarily due to contract costs in 2019 related to initiatives to explore new customer products and services;
a decrease of $6.8 million in loss provisions;
higher nuclear insurance refunds of $5.9 million;
a decrease of $5.8 million in energy efficiency costs due to the timing of recovery from customers; and
a totaldecrease of 160 basis points$4.3 million in non-nuclear generation expenses primarily due to 80 basis points;a lower scope of work performed during plant outages in 2020 as compared to the same period in 2019, partially offset by increases resulting from the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and the Lake Charles Power Station being placed in service.

The decrease was partially offset by:

an increase of $4.1 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to an increase in net periodic pension and other postretirement benefits costs as a forward-looking mechanism that would allow Entergy Louisiana to recover certain transmission-related costs contemporaneously with when those projects begin delivering benefits to customers.  Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC consider its request on an expedited basis, in an effort to maintain Entergy Louisiana’s current cycle for implementing rate adjustments, i.e., September 2018, without the need for filingresult of a full base rate case proceeding. Several parties have interveneddecrease in the proceedingdiscount rate used to value the benefit liabilities. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and all parties have been participatingNote 11 to the financial statements for further discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit costs; and
several individually insignificant items.

Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to increases in ad valorem taxes resulting from higher property assessments.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station), which was placed into service in May 2019 and the Lake Charles Power Station, which was placed in service in March 2020.

Other regulatory charges (credits) include regulatory charges of $32.6 million recorded in the fourth quarter 2020 due to a settlement discussions.

Waterfordwith the IRS related to the uncertain tax position regarding Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita Louisiana Act 55 financing because the savings will be shared with customers and $29 million recorded in the first quarter 2020 due to a settlement with the IRS related to the uncertain tax position regarding Hurricane Isaac Louisiana Act 55 financing because the savings will be shared with customers. See Note 3 Replacement Steam Generator Project

Followingto the completionfinancial statements for further discussion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, the LPSC undertook a prudence review in connection with a filing made by Entergy Louisiana in April 2013 with regard to the following aspects of the replacement project: 1) project management; 2) cost controls; 3) success in achieving stated objectives; 4) the costs of the replacement project;settlements and 5) the outage length and replacement power costs. In July 2014 the LPSC staff filed testimony recommending potential project and replacement power cost disallowances of up to $71 million, citing a need for further explanation or documentation from Entergy Louisiana.  An intervenor filed testimony recommending disallowance of $141 million of incremental project costs, claiming the steam generator fabricator was imprudent.  Entergy Louisiana provided further documentation and explanation requested by the LPSC staff. An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2014. At the hearing the parties maintained the positions reflected in pre-filed testimony. Entergy Louisiana believed that the replacement steam generator costs were prudently incurred and applicable legal principles supported their recovery in rates.  Nevertheless, Entergy Louisiana recorded a write-off of $16 million of Waterford 3’s plant balance in December 2014 because of the uncertainty at the time associated with the resolution of the prudence review. In December 2015 the ALJ issued a proposed recommendation, which was subsequently finalized, concluding that Entergy Louisiana prudently managed the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, including the selection, use, and oversight of contractors, and could not reasonably have anticipated the damage to the steam generators. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana was liable for the conduct of its contractor and subcontractor and, therefore, recommended a disallowance of $67 million in capital costs. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana did not sufficiently justify the incurrence of $2 million in replacement power costs during the replacement outage. Although the ALJ’s recommendation had not yet been considered by the LPSC, after considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the ALJ recommendation, Entergy

savings obligations.
339
340

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Other income decreased primarily due to:
Louisiana recorded
a decrease in the fourth quarter 2015 approximately $77allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2019, including the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and the Lake Charles Power Station projects; and
changes in decommissioning trust fund activity.

Interest expense increased primarily due to:

the issuances of $300 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds and $350 million of 2.90% Series mortgage bonds, each in charges,March 2020;
the issuance of $525 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds in March 2019; and
a decrease in the allowance for borrowed funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2019, including a $45 million asset write-offthe J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and a $32 million regulatory charge,Lake Charles Power Station projects.

The effective income tax rates were (54.6%) for 2020 and 15% for 2019. The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of 21% for 2020 was primarily due to reflect that a portioncompletion of the assets associated with2014-2015 IRS audit effectively settling the Waterfordtax positions for those years. The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of 21% for 2019 was primarily due to the amortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. See Notes 2 and 3 replacement steam generator project was no longer probable of recovery. Entergy Louisiana maintained thatto the ALJ’s recommendation contained significant factual and legal errors.

In October 2016 the parties reachedfinancial statements for a settlement in this matter. The settlement was approved by the LPSC in December 2016. The settlement effectively provided for an agreed-upon disallowance of $67 million of plant, which had been previously written off by Entergy Louisiana, as discussed above. The refund to customers of approximately $71 million as a resultdiscussion of the settlement approved byeffects and regulatory activity regarding the LPSC was made to customers in January 2017. Of the $71 million of refunds, $68 million was credited to customers through Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan, outside of sharing,Tax Cuts and $3 million through its fuel adjustment clause. Entergy Louisiana had previously recorded a provision of $48 million for this refund. The previously-recorded provision included the cumulative revenues recorded through December 2016 relatedJobs Act. See Note 3 to the $67 million of disallowed plant. An additional regulatory charge of $23 million was recorded in fourth quarter 2016 to reflect the effectsfinancial statements for a reconciliation of the settlement. The settlement also provided that Entergy Louisiana could retain the value associated with potential service credits agreed to by the project contractor,federal statutory rates of 21% to the extent they are realizedeffective income tax rates.

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Results of Operations in the future. Following a review by the parties, an unopposed joint report of proceedings was filed by the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana in May 2017 and the LPSC accepted the joint report of proceedings resolving the matter.

Ninemile 6

In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC, which was subsequently approved, that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached. In late-December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $26.8 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate formed the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudenceItem 7 of Entergy Louisiana’s management ofAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the project. Testimonyyear ended December 31, 2019, filed by the LPSC staff generally supported the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff had questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In October 2016 all parties agreed to a stipulation providing that 100% of Ninemile 6 construction costs was prudently incurred and is eligible for recovery from customers, but reserving the LPSC’s rights to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s actions regarding one element of the project. This stipulation was approved by the LPSC in January 2017.

Union Power Station and Deactivation or Retirement Decisions for Entergy Louisiana Plants

In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed its application with the LPSCSEC on February 21, 2020, for approvaldiscussion of results of operations for 2019 compared to 2018.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the acquisitionyears ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and cost recovery of two power blocks of the Union Power Station for an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million per power block, subject to adjustments. In September 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana agreed to settlement terms with all parties for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s purchase of the two power blocks. In October 2015 the LPSC voted unanimously to approve the uncontested settlement which finds, among other things, that acquisition of Power Blocks 3 and 4 is in the public interest and, therefore, prudent. The business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana received regulatory approval and closed in October 2015 making Entergy Louisiana the named purchaser of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana acquired Power Blocks 3 and 4 of Union Power Station for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $474 million and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016.2018 were as follows:

 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period$2,006 $43,364 $35,907 
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities1,072,986 1,236,002 1,395,204 
Investing activities(1,944,671)(1,653,634)(1,878,208)
Financing activities1,597,699 376,274 490,461 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents726,014 (41,358)7,457 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$728,020 $2,006 $43,364 


340
341

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



2020 Compared to 2019

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $163 million in 2020 primarily due to:

an increase of $186.1 million in storm spending in 2020, primarily due to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration efforts. See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for discussion of storm restoration efforts;
lower collections of receivables from customers, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs; and
an increase of $21.5 million in interest paid.

The decrease was partially offset by:

a decrease in $43.7 million in spending on nuclear refueling outages;
the timing of payments to vendors; and
income tax refunds of $14.7 million in 2020 compared to $15.3 million in income tax payments in 2019. Entergy Louisiana had income tax refunds in 2020 and income tax payments in 2019 in accordance with an intercompany tax allocation agreement. Entergy Louisiana had income tax refunds in 2020 as a result of a refund of an overpayment on a prior year state income tax return.

Investing Activities

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $291 million in 2020 primarily due to:

an increase of $709.7 million in storm spending 2020, primarily due to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration efforts, See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for discussion of storm restoration efforts;
the purchase of Washington Parish Energy Center in November 2020 for approximately $222 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Washington Parish Energy Center purchase;
an increase of $16.7 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to investment in the reliability and infrastructure of Entergy Louisiana’s distribution system, including increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure; and
money pool activity.

The increase was partially offset by:

an increase of $302.2 million in net receipts from storm reserve escrow accounts;
a decrease of $207.8 million in non-nuclear generation construction expenditures due to higher spending in 2019 on the Lake Charles Power Station and J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) projects;
a decrease of $133.1 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a lower scope of work performed on various projects in 2020 as compared to 2019;
a decrease of $89.5 million in nuclear construction expenditures primarily due to a lower scope of work performed on various nuclear projects in 2020 as compared to 2019; and
a decrease of $26.1 million as a result of fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements in the Utility business, material, and service deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle.

Increases in Entergy Louisiana’s receivable from the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Louisiana’s receivable from the money pool increased by $13.4 million in 2020 compared to decreasing by $46.8
342

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

million in 2019. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.

Financing Activities

Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $1,221.4 million in 2020 primarily due to:

the issuance of $1.1 billion of 0.62% Series mortgage bonds in November 2020;
the issuance of $350 million of 2.90% Series mortgage bonds and $300 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds, each in March 2020;
the issuance of $300 million of 2.90% Series mortgage bonds and $300 million of 1.60% Series mortgage bonds, each in November 2020; and
a decrease of $186.5 million in common equity distributions in 2020 primarily due to upcoming capital expenditures.

The increase was partially offset by:

the issuance of $525 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds in March 2019;
the repayment in August 2020 of $250 million of 3.95% Series mortgage bonds due October 2020;
the repayment in December 2020 of $200 million of 5.25% Series mortgage bonds due July 2052;
money pool activity;
the repayment in December 2020 of $100 million of 4.70% Series mortgage bonds due June 2063; and
net repayments of long-term borrowings of $62 million in 2020 on the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities’ credit facilities.

Decreases in Entergy Louisiana’s payable to the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Louisiana’s payable to the money pool decreased by $82.8 million in 2020 compared to increasing by $82.8 million in 2019.

See Note 5 to the financial statements for details of long-term debt.

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Cash Flow” in Item 7 of Entergy Louisiana’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2019 compared to 2018.

Capital Structure

Entergy Louisiana’s debt to capital ratio is shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital ratio for Entergy Louisiana is primarily due to the net issuances of long-term debt in 2020.
 December 31,
2020
December 31,
2019
Debt to capital54.8 %53.4 %
Effect of excluding securitization bonds0.0 %(0.1 %)
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)54.8 %53.3 %
Effect of subtracting cash(2.1 %)(0.1 %)
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)52.7 %53.2 %

343

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

(a)Calculation excludes the securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy Louisiana.

Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents.  Debt consists of short-term borrowings, finance lease obligations, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion.  Capital consists of debt and common equity.  Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents.  Entergy Louisiana uses the debt to capital ratios excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes they provide useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Louisiana’s financial condition because the securitization bonds are non-recourse to Entergy Louisiana, as more fully described in Note 5 to the financial statements. Entergy Louisiana also uses the net debt to net capital ratio excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Louisiana’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy Louisiana’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.

Entergy Louisiana seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings.  To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a distribution, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the capital structure.  To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Louisiana may issue incremental debt or reduce distributions, or both, to maintain its capital structure.  In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as financing of large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing distributions, Entergy Louisiana may receive equity contributions to maintain its capital structure.

Uses of Capital

Entergy Louisiana requires capital resources for:

construction and other capital investments;
debt maturities or retirements;
working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel and purchased power costs; and
distribution and interest payments.

Following are the amounts of Entergy Louisiana’s planned construction and other capital investments.
 202120222023
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:  
Generation$365 $460 $785 
Transmission425 340 230 
Distribution540 485 500 
Utility Support160 130 115 
Total$1,490 $1,415 $1,630 

In addition to the planned spending in the table above, Entergy Louisiana also expects to pay for $845 million of capital investments in 2021 related to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration work that have been accrued as of December 31, 2020.
344

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Following are the amounts of Entergy Louisiana’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 20212022-20232024-2025After 2025Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)$557 $2,294 $1,495 $9,506 $13,852 
Operating leases (b)$13 $19 $10 $4 $46 
Finance leases (b)$4 $7 $4 $2 $17 
Purchase obligations (c)$687 $1,463 $1,472 $4,838 $8,460 

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.
(c)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Louisiana, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Vidalia purchased power agreement and the Unit Power Sales Agreement, both of which are discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements.

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, Entergy Louisiana currently expects to contribute approximately $59.9 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $15.6 million to its other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2021, although the 2021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2021. See “Critical Accounting Estimates- Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.

In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Louisiana includes specific investments such as transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to maintain reliability and improve service to customers, including advanced meters and related investments; resource planning, including potential generation and renewables projects; system improvements; investments in River Bend and Waterford 3; software and security; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital.

As a termwholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, Entergy Louisiana pays distributions from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.

Sources of Capital

Entergy Louisiana’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
storm reserve escrow accounts;
debt or preferred membership interest issuances, including debt issuances to refund or retire currently outstanding or maturing indebtedness;
capital contributions; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.

Entergy Louisiana may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest rates are favorable.
345

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

All debt and common and preferred membership interest issuances by Entergy Louisiana require prior regulatory approval. Debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its bond indentures and other agreements. Entergy Louisiana has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.

Entergy Louisiana’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the LPSC-approved settlement authorizingfollowing years.
2020201920182017
(In Thousands)
$13,426($82,826)$46,843$11,173

See Note 4 to the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4financial statements for a description of the Union Power Station, money pool.

Entergy Louisiana agreedhas a credit facility in the amount of $350 million scheduled to makeexpire in September 2024. The credit facility includes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against $15 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, 2020, there were no cash borrowings and no letters of credit outstanding under the credit facility. In addition, Entergy Louisiana is a filing withparty to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO.  As of December 31, 2020, $2.2 million in letters of credit were outstanding under Entergy Louisiana’s uncommitted letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the credit facilities.

The Entergy Louisiana nuclear fuel company variable interest entities have two separate credit facilities, each in the amount of $105 million and scheduled to expire in September 2022. As of December 31, 2020, $18.9 million of loans were outstanding under the credit facility for the Entergy Louisiana River Bend nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. As of December 31, 2020, $39.3 million in loans were outstanding under the Entergy Louisiana Waterford nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facilities.

Entergy Louisiana obtained authorizations from the FERC through July 2022 for the following:

short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $450 million at any time outstanding;
long-term borrowings and security issuances; and
borrowings by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entities.

See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s short-term borrowing limits.

Hurricane Isaac

In June 2014 the LPSC voted to review its decisionsapprove a series of orders which (i) quantified $290.8 million of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs as prudently incurred; (ii) determined $290 million as the level of storm reserves to deactivate Ninemile 3 and Willow Glen 2 and 4 and its decision to retire Little Gypsy 1.  In January 2016,be re-established; (iii) authorized Entergy Louisiana made its compliance filingto utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) granted other requested relief associated with the LPSC.storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs. Entergy Louisiana LPSC staff, and intervenors participated incommitted to pass on to customers a technical conference in March 2016 where Entergy Louisiana presented information on its deactivation/retirement decisionsminimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for these four units in addition to information on the current deactivation decisionsfive years. Approvals for the ten-year planning horizon. Parties have requested further proceedings onAct 55 financings were obtained from the prudenceLouisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation and the Louisiana State Bond Commission. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4.  No party contests the prudenceAugust 2014 issuance of bonds under Act 55 of the decision to deactivate Willow Glen 2 and 4 or suggests reactivation of these units; however, issues have been raised related to Entergy Louisiana’s decision to give up its transmission service rights in MISO for Willow Glen 2 and 4 rather than placing the units into suspended status for the three-year term permitted by MISO. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2017 and post-hearing briefs were submitted in October 2017. A decision is expected in 2018.Louisiana Legislature.


Retail Rates - Gas


In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the
245

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of 10.45%the upper end of the earnings band as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.


2014 Rate Stabilization Plan FilingStorm Cost Recovery


In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014.  The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which resulted in a $706 thousand rate increase.  In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that did not affect the results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015.

2015 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. In March 2016 the LPSC staff issued its report stating that the 2015 gas rate stabilization plan filing was in compliance with the exception of several issues that required additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff had reserved the right to further review. In July 2016 the parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed joint report and motion for entry of order accepting the report that indicated no outstanding issues remained in the filing.


341

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


In February 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the term of the gas rate stabilization plan in substantially similar form for an additional three-year term and included a request for sharing of non-jurisdictional compressed natural gas revenues. Following discovery and the filing of testimony by the LPSC staff, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC submitted a joint motion for hearing an uncontested stipulated settlement resolving the proceeding. A hearing on the stipulation was held in November 2016. The ALJ issued a report of proceedings that was presented with the parties’ stipulation to the LPSC for consideration. The stipulation approving Entergy Louisiana’s requested extension of the rate stabilization plan was approved by the LPSC in December 2016.

2016 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

In January 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2016. The filing of the evaluation report for test year 2016 reflected an earned return on common equity of 6.37%. As part of the original filing, pursuant to the extraordinary cost provision of the rate stabilization plan, Entergy Louisiana sought to recover approximately $1.5 million in deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. Entergy Louisiana requested to recover the prudently incurred August 2016 storm restoration costs over ten years, outside of the rate stabilization plan sharing provisions. As a result, Entergy Louisiana’s filing sought an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million. Following review of the filing, except for the proposed extraordinary cost recovery, the LPSC staff confirmed Entergy Louisiana’s filing was consistent with the principles and requirements of the rate stabilization plan. The extraordinary cost recovery request associated with the 2016 flood-related deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred for gas operations was removed from the rate stabilization plan pending LPSC consideration in a separate docket. In April 2017 the LPSC approved a joint report of proceedings and Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report reflecting a $1.2 million annual increase in revenue with rates implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2017.

In connection with the joint report of proceedings accepted by the LPSC, in May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application to initiate a separate proceeding to recover through the extraordinary cost provision of the gas rate stabilization plan the deferred operation and maintenance expenses of $1.4 million incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. The LPSC staff submitted its direct testimony in the proceeding recommending recovery of $0.9 million. Entergy Louisiana filed rebuttal testimony responding to the LPSC staff’s recommendation. The procedural schedule was suspended to allow the parties to engage in settlement negotiations, and in February 2018 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed settlement. If approved by the LPSC, the settlement would provide for Entergy Louisiana to recover, over ten years, the approximately $1.4 million in deferred operation and maintenance expense and related carrying charges. The settlement further provides for recovery to commence in May 2018.

2017 Rate Stabilization Plan Filing

In January 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for test year ended September 30, 2017.  The filing of the evaluation report for the test year 2017 reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.06%.  This earned return is below the earnings sharing band of the rate stabilization plan and results in a rate increase of $0.1 million.  Due to the enactment in late-December 2017 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Entergy Louisiana did not have adequate time to reflect the effects of this tax legislation in the rate stabilization plan.  As a result, Entergy Louisiana will file a supplement to the January 2018 evaluation report to reflect, among other things, a 21% federal corporate income tax rate.  Any rate change resulting from the revised rate stabilization plan will become effective in rates in May 2018.

Fuel and purchased power recovery

Entergy Louisiana recovers electric fuel and purchased power costs for the billing month based upon the level of such costs incurred two months prior to the billing month. Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustments include

342

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


estimates for the billing month adjusted by a surcharge or credit that arises from an annual reconciliation of fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

In April 2010 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings.  The audit included a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through the fuel adjustment clause by Entergy Louisiana for the period from 2005 through 2009.  The LPSC staff issued its audit report in January 2013.  The LPSC staff recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $1.9 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $1 million from Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates.  The recommended refund was made by Entergy Louisiana in May 2013 in the form of a credit to customers through its fuel adjustment clause filing. In October 2016 the LPSC staff filed testimony affirming the recommendation in its audit report on the lone remaining issue that nuclear dry fuel storage costs should be realigned to base rates. The parties agreed to remove that remaining issue to a separate docket because the same issue was outstanding in the Entergy Gulf States Louisiana audit for the same time period. In November 2016 the LPSC approved the resolution of this audit and the creation of a new docket for the resolution of the proper method of recovery for nuclear dry fuel storage costs. In December 2016 the LPSC opened a new docket in order to resolve the issue regarding the proper methodology for the recovery of nuclear dry fuel storage costs. In October 2017 the LPSC approved the continued recovery of the nuclear dry fuel storage costs through the fuel adjustment clause, resolving the open issue in the audit.

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates.  The audit included a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009.  In March 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $8.6 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $12.7 million from Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates. In September 2016 the LPSC staff filed testimony stating that it was no longer recommending a disallowance of $3.4 million of the $8.6 million discussed above, but otherwise maintained positions from its report. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement, which was approved by the LPSC in November 2016. The settlement recognized the dry cask storage recovery method issue, which was addressed in the separate proceeding approved by the LPSC in October 2017, provided for a refund of $5 million, which was made to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers in December 2016, and resolved all other issues raised in the audit.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. Discovery commenced in July 2015. No report of audit has been issued.

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. Discovery commenced in July 2015. No report of audit has been issued.

In June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. In recognition of the business combination that occurred in 2015, the audit notice was issued to Entergy Louisiana and will also include a review of charges to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers prior to the business combination. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2014 through 2015 and charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery commenced in March 2017. No report of audit has been issued.

Due to higher fuel costs for the operating month of January 2018 resulting in part from recent cold weather, higher Henry Hub prices, and an increase in total fuel and purchased power costs, Entergy Louisiana plans to cap the

343

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


average fuel adjustment charge to be billed in March 2018 at $0.03060 per kWh and to defer billing of all fuel costs in excess of the capped amounts by including such costs in the over- or under-recovery account.

Industrial and Commercial Customers

Entergy Louisiana’s large industrial and commercial customers continually explore ways to reduce their energy costs. In particular, cogeneration is an option available to a portion of Entergy Louisiana’s industrial customer base. Entergy Louisiana responds by working with industrial and commercial customers and negotiating electric service contracts to provide competitive rates that match specific customer needs and load profiles. Entergy Louisiana actively participates in economic development, customer retention, and reclamation activities to increase industrial and commercial demand, from both new and existing customers.

Federal Regulation

See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation– Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.

Nuclear Matters

Entergy Louisiana owns and, through an affiliate, operates the River Bend and Waterford 3 nuclear power plants. Entergy Louisiana is, therefore, subject to the risks related to owning and operating nuclear plants. These include risks related to: the use, storage, and handling and disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive materials; the substantial financial requirements, both for capital investments and operational needs, to position Entergy’s nuclear fleet to meet its operational goals, including the financial requirements to address emerging issues like stress corrosion cracking of certain materials within the plant systems and the Fukushima event; regulatory requirements and potential future regulatory changes, including changes affecting the regulations governing nuclear plant ownership, operations, license renewal and amendments, and decommissioning; the performance and capacity factors of these nuclear plants; the availability of interim or permanent sites for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, including the fees charged for such disposal; the sufficiency of nuclear decommissioning trust fund assets and earnings to complete decommissioning of each site when required; and limitations on the amounts and types of insurance commercially available for losses in connection with nuclear plant operations and catastrophic events such as a nuclear accident. In the event of an unanticipated early shutdown of River Bend or Waterford 3, Entergy Louisiana may be required to provide additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning.
Waterford 3’s operating license is currently due to expire in December 2024.  In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the NRC for an extension of Waterford 3’s operating license to 2044. River Bend’s operating license is currently due to expire in August 2025. In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the NRC for an extension of River Bend’s operating license to 2045. In October 2017 an intervenor filed with the NRC a petition to intervene and request for a hearing on the River Bend license renewal application. As provided by NRC procedure, a panel of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has been designated to determine whether the intervenor’s three proposed contentions, or allegations of errors or omissions in the license renewal application, are admissible and, if so, to rule on any admitted contentions. In January 2018 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board denied the petition to intervene and the request for hearing.
Environmental Risks

Entergy Louisiana’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters. Management believes that Entergy Louisiana is in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted in

344

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Regulation of Entergy’s Business - Environmental Regulation” in Part I, Item 1. Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance costs cannot be precisely estimated.

Critical Accounting Estimates

The preparation of Entergy Louisiana’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to apply appropriate accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that can have a significant effect on reported financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Management has identified the following accounting policies and estimates as critical because they are based on assumptions and measurements that involve a high degree of uncertainty, and the potential for future changes in the assumptions and measurements that could produce estimates that would have a material effect on the presentation of Entergy Louisiana’s financial position or results of operations.

Nuclear Decommissioning Costs

See “Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates inherent in accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs.

Utility Regulatory Accounting

See “Utility Regulatory Accounting” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of accounting for the effects of rate regulation.

Unbilled Revenue

See “Unbilled Revenue” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the unbilled revenue amounts.

Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments

See “Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the impairment of long-lived assets and trust fund investments.

Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions

See “Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.

Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits

Entergy Louisiana’s qualified pension and other postretirement reported costs, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are impacted by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms.   See the “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.  Because of the complexity of these calculations, the long-term nature of these obligations, and the importance of the assumptions utilized, Entergy’s estimate of these costs is a critical accounting estimate.

345

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Cost Sensitivity

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension cost and qualified projected benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Qualified Pension Cost Impact on 2017 Projected Qualified Benefit Obligation
    Increase/(Decrease)  
Discount rate (0.25%) $3,737 $54,506
Rate of return on plan assets (0.25%) $3,309 $—
Rate of increase in compensation 0.25% $1,726 $8,824

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Postretirement Benefit Cost Impact on 2017 Accumulated postretirement Benefit Obligation
    Increase/(Decrease)  
Discount rate (0.25%) $753 $10,727
Health care cost trend 0.25% $1,219 $8,675

Each fluctuation above assumes that the other components of the calculation are held constant.

Costs and Funding

Total qualified pension cost for Entergy Louisiana in 2017 was $44.3 million.  Entergy Louisiana anticipates 2018 qualified pension cost to be $52.1 million.   In 2016, Entergy Louisiana refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of qualified pension costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified pension costs by $14.2 million.  Entergy Louisiana contributed $87.5 million to its pension plans in 2017 and estimates pension contributions will be approximately $71.9 million in 2018, although the 2018 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2018 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.

Total postretirement health care and life insurance benefit costs for Entergy Louisiana in 2017 were $12.6 million.  Entergy Louisiana expects 2018 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit costs of approximately $11.2 million.  In 2016, Entergy Louisiana refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of other postretirement costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified other postretirement costs by $3.5 million. Entergy Louisiana contributed $14.4 million to its other postretirement plans in 2017 and estimates that 2018 contributions will be approximately $19 million.

Federal Healthcare Legislation

See “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits -Federal Healthcare Legislation” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of Federal Healthcare Legislation.


346

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Other Contingencies

See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.

New Accounting Pronouncements

See “New Accounting Pronouncements” section of Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the members and Board of Directors of
Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, cash flows, and changes in equity (pages 349 through 354 and applicable items in pages 55 through 230), for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 2018


We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2001.

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
       
OPERATING REVENUES      
Electric 
$4,246,020
 
$4,126,343
 
$4,361,524
Natural gas 54,530
 50,705
 55,622
TOTAL 4,300,550
 4,177,048
 4,417,146
       
OPERATING EXPENSES  
  
  
Operation and Maintenance:  
  
  
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale 912,060
 804,433
 850,869
Purchased power 980,070
 890,058
 1,129,910
Nuclear refueling outage expenses 52,074
 51,361
 44,480
Other operation and maintenance 969,400
 923,779
 997,546
Decommissioning 49,457
 46,944
 43,445
Taxes other than income taxes 175,359
 165,665
 167,966
Depreciation and amortization 467,369
 451,290
 437,036
Other regulatory charges (credits) - net (152,080) 44,131
 27,562
TOTAL 3,453,709
 3,377,661
 3,698,814
       
OPERATING INCOME 846,841
 799,387
 718,332
       
OTHER INCOME  
  
  
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 51,485
 27,925
 19,192
Interest and investment income 164,550
 154,778
 150,168
Miscellaneous - net (11,960) (11,597) (13,190)
TOTAL 204,075
 171,106
 156,170
       
INTEREST EXPENSE  
  
  
Interest expense 275,185
 273,283
 259,894
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction (25,914) (14,571) (10,702)
TOTAL 249,271
 258,712
 249,192
       
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES 801,645
 711,781
 625,310
       
Income taxes 485,298
 89,734
 178,671
       
NET INCOME 316,347
 622,047
 446,639
       
Preferred distribution requirements and other 
 
 5,737
       
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON EQUITY 
$316,347
 
$622,047
 
$440,902
       
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
       
Net Income 
$316,347
 
$622,047
 
$446,639
       
Other comprehensive income  
  
  
Pension and other postretirement liabilities  
  
  
(net of tax expense of $234, $5,034, and $14,316) 2,042
 7,970
 22,811
Other comprehensive income 2,042
 7,970
 22,811
       
Comprehensive Income 
$318,389
 
$630,017
 
$469,450
       
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES      
Net income 
$316,347
 
$622,047
 
$446,639
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:      
Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning, including nuclear fuel amortization 621,018
 620,211
 593,635
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued 575,804
 178,549
 97,461
Changes in working capital:  
  
  
Receivables (53,829) (102,200) (12,795)
Fuel inventory 11,010
 (2,693) (887)
Accounts payable 58,880
 (36,720) 23,641
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued 128,261
 (235,246) 105,687
Interest accrued (70) 1,218
 2,933
Deferred fuel costs 23,236
 (17,023) 4,222
Other working capital accounts (30,911) 6,462
 (41,890)
Changes in provisions for estimated losses (8,324) 490
 (8,946)
Changes in other regulatory assets 492,696
 57,579
 130,762
Changes in other regulatory liabilities 605,453
 62,351
 96,234
Deferred tax rate change recognized as regulatory liability/asset (1,207,808) 
 
Changes in pension and other postretirement liabilities (32,309) (52,559) (98,695)
Other (161,909) (64,554) (182,485)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities 1,337,545
 1,037,912
 1,155,516
INVESTING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Construction expenditures (1,662,835) (1,030,416) (845,227)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 51,485
 27,925
 19,192
Insurance proceeds 5,305
 10,564
 
Nuclear fuel purchases (197,829) (73,618) (244,040)
Proceeds from the sale of nuclear fuel 42,634
 63,304
 54,595
Payment for purchase of plant 
 (474,670) 
Payments to storm reserve escrow account (2,110) (1,063) (308)
Receipts from storm reserve escrow account 8,835
 
 
Changes in securitization account 880
 351
 (137)
Proceeds from nuclear decommissioning trust fund sales 231,293
 219,182
 123,474
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust funds (266,592) (257,209) (158,028)
Changes in money pool receivable - net 11,330
 (16,349) (3,339)
Proceeds from sale of assets 
 
 59,610
Payment for purchase of assets (9,805) 
 
Litigation proceeds for reimbursement of spent nuclear fuel storage costs 
 57,934
 
Net cash flow used in investing activities (1,787,409) (1,474,065) (994,208)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt 733,344
 2,450,063
 77,172
Retirement of long-term debt (407,736) (1,488,870) (180,595)
Redemption of preferred membership interests 
 
 (110,286)
Changes in credit borrowings - net 39,746
 (56,562) 14,322
Distributions paid:  
  
  
Common equity (91,250) (285,500) (226,000)
Preferred membership interests 
 
 (6,082)
Other (2,183) (4,230) (15,253)
Net cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities 271,921
 614,901
 (446,722)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (177,943) 178,748
 (285,414)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 213,850
 35,102
 320,516
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period 
$35,907
 
$213,850
 
$35,102
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:  
  
  
Cash paid (received) during the period for:  
  
  
Interest - net of amount capitalized 
$266,871
 
$324,456
 
$243,745
Income taxes 
($234,199) 
$156,605
 
$89,124
Non-cash financing activities:      
Capital contribution from parent 
$—
 
$—
 
($267,826)
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
   
  December 31,
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
     
CURRENT ASSETS    
Cash and cash equivalents:    
Cash 
$5,836
 
$49,972
Temporary cash investments 30,071
 163,878
Total cash and cash equivalents 35,907
 213,850
Accounts receivable:  
  
Customer 254,308
 213,517
Allowance for doubtful accounts (8,430) (6,277)
Associated companies 143,524
 155,794
Other 60,893
 54,186
Accrued unbilled revenues 153,118
 159,176
Total accounts receivable 603,413
 576,396
Fuel inventory 39,728
 50,738
Materials and supplies - at average cost 299,881
 294,421
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs 65,711
 22,535
Prepaid taxes 
 110,104
Prepayments and other 34,035
 41,687
TOTAL 1,078,675
 1,309,731
     
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
  
Investment in affiliate preferred membership interests 1,390,587
 1,390,587
Decommissioning trust funds 1,312,073
 1,140,707
Storm reserve escrow account 284,759
 291,485
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation) 245,255
 217,494
Other 18,999
 28,844
TOTAL 3,251,673
 3,069,117
     
UTILITY PLANT  
  
Electric 19,678,536
 18,827,532
Natural gas 191,899
 172,816
Construction work in progress 1,281,452
 670,201
Nuclear fuel 337,402
 249,807
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT 21,489,289
 19,920,356
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization 8,703,047
 8,420,596
UTILITY PLANT - NET 12,786,242
 11,499,760
     
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
  
Regulatory assets:  
  
Regulatory asset for income taxes - net 
 470,480
Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $71,367 as of December 31, 2017 and $92,951 as of December 31, 2016) 1,145,842
 1,168,058
Deferred fuel costs 168,122
 168,122
Other 18,310
 16,003
TOTAL 1,332,274
 1,822,663
     
TOTAL ASSETS 
$18,448,864
 
$17,701,271
     
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
   
  December 31,
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
     
CURRENT LIABILITIES    
Currently maturing long-term debt 
$675,002
 
$200,198
Short-term borrowings 43,540
 3,794
Accounts payable:  
  
Associated companies 126,685
 82,106
Other 404,374
 358,741
Customer deposits 150,623
 148,601
Taxes accrued 18,157
 
Interest accrued 75,528
 75,598
Deferred fuel costs 71,447
 48,211
Other 79,037
 80,013
TOTAL 1,644,393
 997,262
     
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued 2,050,371
 2,691,118
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits 121,870
 126,741
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net 725,368
 
Other regulatory liabilities 761,059
 880,974
Decommissioning 1,140,461
 1,082,685
Accumulated provisions 302,448
 310,772
Pension and other postretirement liabilities 748,384
 780,278
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $77,736 as of December 31, 2017 and $99,217 as of December 31, 2016) 5,469,069
 5,612,593
Other 176,637
 137,039
TOTAL 11,495,667
 11,622,200
     
Commitments and Contingencies 

 

     
EQUITY  
  
Member’s equity 5,355,204
 5,130,251
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (46,400) (48,442)
TOTAL 5,308,804
 5,081,809
     
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 
$18,448,864
 
$17,701,271
     
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
      
   Common Equity  
 Preferred Membership Interests Member’s Equity Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) Total
 (In Thousands)
        
Balance at December 31, 2014
$110,000
 
$4,316,210
 
($79,223) 
$4,346,987
Net income
 446,639
 
 446,639
Other comprehensive income
 
 22,811
 22,811
Preferred stock redemption(110,000) 
 
 (110,000)
Non-cash contribution from parent
 267,826
 
 267,826
Distributions to parent
 (226,000) 
 (226,000)
Distributions declared on preferred membership interests
 (5,737) 
 (5,737)
Other
 (5,214) 
 (5,214)
Balance at December 31, 2015
$—
 
$4,793,724
 
($56,412) 
$4,737,312
Net income
 622,047
 
 622,047
Other comprehensive income
 
 7,970
 7,970
Distributions to parent
 (285,500) 
 (285,500)
Other
 (20) 
 (20)
Balance at December 31, 2016
$—
 
$5,130,251
 
($48,442) 
$5,081,809
Net income
 316,347
 
 316,347
Other comprehensive income
 
 2,042
 2,042
Distributions declared on common equity
 (91,250) 
 (91,250)
Other
 (144) 
 (144)
Balance at December 31, 2017
$—
 
$5,355,204
 
($46,400) 
$5,308,804
        
See Notes to Financial Statements. 
  
  
  


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
          
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (In Thousands)
          
Operating revenues
$4,300,550
 
$4,177,048
 
$4,417,146
 
$4,740,504
 
$4,399,511
Net income
$316,347
 
$622,047
 
$446,639
 
$446,022
 
$414,126
Total assets
$18,448,864
 
$17,701,271
 
$16,387,447
 
$16,423,825
 
$15,275,863
Long-term obligations (a)
$5,469,069
 
$5,612,593
 
$4,806,790
 
$4,882,813
 
$4,383,273
          
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt).
    
          
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (Dollars In Millions)
          
Electric Operating Revenues: 
  
  
  
  
Residential
$1,198
 
$1,196
 
$1,292
 
$1,358
 
$1,304
Commercial956
 930
 989
 1,044
 1,003
Industrial1,534
 1,350
 1,420
 1,569
 1,457
Governmental69
 67
 67
 70
 68
Total retail3,757
 3,543
 3,768
 4,041
 3,832
Sales for resale: 
  
  
  
  
Associated companies278
 368
 406
 427
 320
Non-associated companies64
 50
 36
 80
 48
Other147
 165
 152
 121
 140
Total
$4,246
 
$4,126
 
$4,362
 
$4,669
 
$4,340
          
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh): 
  
  
  
  
Residential13,357
 13,810
 14,399
 14,415
 14,026
Commercial11,342
 11,478
 11,700
 11,555
 11,402
Industrial29,754
 28,517
 27,713
 27,025
 25,734
Governmental790
 794
 756
 732
 723
Total retail55,243
 54,599
 54,568
 53,727
 51,885
Sales for resale: 
  
  
  
  
Associated companies4,793
 7,345
 7,500
 6,240
 5,168
Non-associated companies1,711
 1,690
 770
 1,051
 979
Total61,747
 63,634
 62,838
 61,018
 58,032
          


ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.

MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Results of Operations

Net Income

2017 Compared to 2016

Net income increased $0.8 million primarily due to higher other income, lower other operation and maintenance expenses, and lower interest expense, substantially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses and a higher effective income tax rate.

2016 Compared to 2015

Net income increased $16.5 million primarily due to lower other operation and maintenance expenses, higher net revenues, and a lower effective income tax rate, partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses.

Net Revenue

2017 Compared to 2016

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory credits. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2017 to 2016.
Amount
(In Millions)
2016 net revenue
$705.4
Volume/weather(18.2)
Retail electric price13.5
Other2.4
2017 net revenue
$703.1

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to a $19.4 million net annual increase in rates, effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and an increase in the energy efficiency rider, effective with the first billing cycle of February 2017, each as approved by the MPSC. The increase was partially offset by decreased storm damage rider revenues due to resetting the storm damage provision to zero beginning with the November 2016 billing cycle. Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the storm damage rider effective with the September 2017 billing cycle. See Note 2 to the financial statements for more discussion of the formula rate plan and the storm damage rider.


356

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

2016 Compared to 2015

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges (credits). Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.
Amount
(In Millions)
2015 net revenue
$696.3
Retail electric price12.9
Volume/weather4.7
Net wholesale revenue(2.4)
Reserve equalization(2.8)
Other(3.3)
2016 net revenue
$705.4

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to a $19.4 million net annual increase in revenues, as approved by the MPSC, effective with the first billing cycle of July 2016, and an increase in revenues collected through the storm damage rider.  See Note 2 to the financial statements for more discussion of the formula rate plan and the storm damage rider.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to an increase of 153 GWh, or 1%, in billed electricity usage, including an increase in industrial usage, partially offset by the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales. The increase in industrial usage is primarily due to expansion projects in the pulp and paper industry, increased demand for existing customers, primarily in the metals industry, and new customers in the wood products industry.

The net wholesale revenue variance is primarily due to Entergy Mississippi’s exit from the System Agreement in November 2015.

The reserve equalization revenue variance is primarily due to the absence of reserve equalization revenue as compared to the same period in 2015 resulting from Entergy Mississippi’s exit from the System Agreement in November 2015.

Other Income Statement Variances

2017 Compared to 2016

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $12 million in fossil-fueled generation expenses primarily due to lower long-term service agreement costs and a lower scope of work done during plant outages in 2017 as compared to the same period in 2016; and
a decrease of $3.6 million in storm damage provisions. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion on storm cost recovery.

The decrease was partially offset by an increase of $4.8 million in energy efficiency costs and an increase of $2.7 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to higher incentive-based compensation accruals in 2017 as compared to the prior year.


357

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service.

Other income increased primarily due to interest income recorded in connection with the opportunity sales proceeding, interest income recorded on the deferred fuel balance, and an increase in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2017 as compared to 2016. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the opportunity sales proceeding.

Interest expense decreased primarily due to the refinancing at lower interest rates of certain first mortgage bonds in 2016 and the retirement, at maturity, of $125 million of 3.25% Series first mortgage bonds in June 2016. See Note 5 to the financial statements for details of long-term debt.

2016 Compared to 2015

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $9.4 million in fossil-fueled generation expenses primarily due to a lower scope of work done during plant outages in 2016 as compared to the same period in 2015;
a decrease of $6.1 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to a decrease in net periodic pension and other postretirement benefits costs as a result of an increase in the discount rate used to value the benefit liabilities and a refinement in the approach used to estimate the service cost and interest cost components of pension and other postretirement costs. See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates - Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for further discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit costs;
a decrease of $2 million due to lower write-offs of uncollectible customer accounts in 2016;
a decrease of $2 million in energy efficiency costs; and
several individually insignificant items.

The decrease was partially offset by an increase of $7.1 million in storm damage provisions and an increase of $6 million in distribution expenses primarily due to higher vegetation maintenance. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of storm cost recovery.Entergy Louisiana’s filings to recover storm-related costs.


DepreciationOther

In March 2016 the LPSC opened two dockets to examine, on a generic basis, issues that it identified in connection with its review of Cleco Corporation’s acquisition by third party investors.  The first docket is captioned “In re: Investigation of double leveraging issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities,” and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service.

Income Taxes

The effective incomethe second is captioned “In re: Investigation of tax ratesstructure issues for 2017,all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities.”  In April 2016 and 2015 were 40.2%, 36.9%, and 40.0%, respectively. See Note 3the LPSC clarified that the concerns giving rise to the financial statements fortwo dockets arose as a reconciliationresult of its review of the federal statutory ratestructure of 35%the Cleco-Macquarie transaction and that the specific intent of the directives is to seek more information regarding intra-corporate debt financing of a utility’s capital structure as well as the use of investment tax credits to mitigate the tax obligation at the parent level of a consolidated entity.  No schedule has been set for either docket, and limited discovery has occurred.

In December 2019 an LPSC commissioner issued an unopposed directive to staff to research customer-centered options for all customer classes, as well as other regulatory environments, and recommend a plan for how to ensure customers are the focus. There was no opposition to the effective income tax rates.

Income Tax Legislation

Seedirective from other commissioners but several remarked that the Income Tax Legislation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussionintent of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal income tax legislation enacted in December 2017. Note 3directive was not initiated to the financial statements contains additional discussionpursue retail open access. In furtherance of the effectdirective, the LPSC issued a notice of the Act on 2017 resultsopening of operationsa docket to conduct a rulemaking to research and financial position, the provisions of the Act, and the uncertainties associated with accountingevaluate customer-centered options for the Act, and Note 2 to the financial statements discusses proceedings commenced orall electric customer classes as well as other responses by Entergy’s regulators to the Act.regulatory environments in January 2020.


358

Entergy Mississippi Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Fuel Recovery
Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 were as follows:
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
$76,834
 
$145,605
 
$61,633
      
Net cash provided by (used in): 
  
  
Operating activities226,585
 212,280
 372,279
Investing activities(417,226) (289,444) (245,127)
Financing activities119,903
 8,393
 (43,180)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents(70,738) (68,771) 83,972
      
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
$6,096
 
$76,834
 
$145,605

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities increased $14.3 million in 2017 primarily dueEntergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include energy cost recovery riders to the timing of recovery ofrecover fuel and purchased power costs.  The energy cost rate for each calendar year is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery of the energy costs in 2017 as comparedof the 12-month period ended September 30.  Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to 2016 and an increaseannual audits conducted pursuant to the authority of $12.6 million in income tax refunds in 2017 as compared to 2016.the MPSC.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Mississippi had income tax refunds in 2017 and 2016 in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement. The 2017 income tax refunds were primarily due to the utilization of Entergy Mississippi’s federal net operating losses and state income tax refunds resultingreceived approval from the carrybackMPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of net operating losses. The increase was partially offset by the timing of payments to vendors.

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $160 million in 2016 primarily due to the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs in 2016 as compared to the same period in 2015 and $15.3 million in insurance proceeds received in 2015 related to the unplanned outage event that occurred at the Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) power plant in September 2013. The decrease was partially offset by income tax refunds of $12.5 million in 2016 compared to income tax payments of $61.3 million in 2015.financial instruments.  Entergy Mississippi had income tax refunds in 2016 and income tax payments in 2015 in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement. The 2016 income tax refunds resulted primarily from adjustments associated with the settlementhedges approximately one-third of the 2010-2011 IRS audit whereasprojected exposure to natural gas price changes for the income tax payments in 2015 were primarily duegas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the resultsyear.  The hedge quantity is reviewed on an annual basis.

246

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and the reversal of taxable temporary differences as well as final settlement of amounts outstanding associated with the 2006-2007 IRS audit. System Energy

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 32 to the financial statements for a discussion of the income tax audits.

Investing Activities

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $127.8 million in 2017 primarily due to:

an increase of $48.4 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a higher scope of work performed in 2017 as compared to 2016;
an increase of $39.2 million in fossil-fueled generation construction expenditures primarily due to a higher scope of work performed in 2017 as compared to 2016; and
an increase of $30.2 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to an increase in storm spending in 2017 as compared to 2016 and increased spending on digital technology improvements within the customer contact centers.


359

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $44.3 million in 2016 primarily due to:

an increase of $72.4 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a higher scope of work performed in 2016 as compared to 2015;
insurance proceeds of $12.9 million received in 2015 related to the unplanned outage event that occurred at the Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) power plant in September 2013;
an increase of $11.4 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to a higher scope of non-storm related work performed in 2016 as compared to 2015; and     
an increase of $10.1 million due to various information technology projects and upgrades.

The increase was partially offset by a decrease of $20.1 million in fossil-fueled generation construction expenditures primarily due to a decreased scope of work performed during plant outages in 2016 as compared to 2015 and money pool activity.

Decreases in Entergy Mississippi’s receivable from the money pool are a source of cash flow, and Entergy Mississippi’s receivable from the money pool decreased by $15.3 million in 2016 compared to increasing by $25.3 million in 2015. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.

Financing Activities

Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $111.5 million in 2017 primarily due to the issuance of $150 million of 3.25% Series first mortgage bonds in November 2017 and the redemption of $30 million of 6.25% Series preferred stock in 2016, partially offset by the net issuance of $61.4 million of long-term debt in 2016.

Entergy Mississippi’s financing activities provided $8.4 million of cash in 2016 compared to using $43.2 million in 2015 primarily due to the net issuance of $61.4 million of long-term debt in 2016 and a decrease of $16 million in common stock dividends paid in 2016, partially offset by the redemption of $30 million of 6.25% Series preferred stock. The decrease in dividends paid was primarily because of lower operating cash flows and higher capital expenditures, each discussed above.

See Note 5 to the financial statements for details on long-term debt.

Capital Structure

Entergy Mississippi’s capitalization is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital ratio for Entergy Mississippi is primarily due to the issuance of long-term debt in 2017.
 December 31,
2017
 December 31,
2016
Debt to capital51.5% 50.2%
Effect of subtracting cash(0.2%) (1.8%)
Net debt to net capital51.3% 48.4%

Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents.  Debt consists of short-term borrowings, capital lease obligations, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion.  Capital consists of debt, preferred stock without sinking fund, and common equity.  Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents.  Entergy Mississippi uses the debt to capital ratio in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Mississippi’s financial condition.  Entergy Mississippi uses the net debt to net capital ratio in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors

360

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

and creditors in evaluating Entergy Mississippi’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy Mississippi’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.

Entergy Mississippi seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings.  To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a dividend, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the targeted capital structure.  To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Mississippi may issue incremental debt or reduce dividends, or both, to maintain its targeted capital structure.  In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing dividends, Entergy Mississippi may receive equity contributions to maintain the targeted capital structure.

Uses of Capital

Entergy Mississippi requires capital resources for:

construction and other capital investments;
debt and preferred stock maturities or retirements;
working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel and purchased power costs; and
dividend and interest payments.
Following are the amountsproceedings regarding recovery of Entergy Mississippi’s planned construction and other capital investments.storm-related costs.

 2018 2019 2020
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:     
Generation
$55
 
$45
 
$260
Transmission145
 100
 105
Distribution125
 140
 130
Utility Support70
 50
 35
Total
$395
 
$335
 
$530

Following are the amounts of Entergy Mississippi’s existing debt obligations and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 2018 2019-2020 2021-2022 After 2022 Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)
$50
 
$234
 
$80
 
$1,784
 
$2,148
Operating leases
$12
 
$19
 
$12
 
$6
 
$49
Purchase obligations (b)
$280
 
$519
 
$490
 
$5,304
 
$6,593

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Mississippi, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which is discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements. 

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, Entergy Mississippi currently expects to contribute approximately $14.9 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $110 thousand to other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2018, although the 2018 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2018 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018  See “Critical Accounting Estimates

361

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


– Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.
In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Mississippi includes amounts associated with specific investments such as transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to enhance reliability and improve service to customers, including investment to support advanced metering; resource planning, including potential generation projects; system improvements; and other investments.  Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital. Management provides more information on long-term debt and preferred stock maturities in Notes 5 and 6 to the financial statements.

As a wholly-owned subsidiary, Entergy Mississippi dividends its earnings to Entergy Corporation at a percentage determined monthly.  Provisions in Entergy Mississippi’s articles of incorporation relating to preferred stock restrict the amount of retained earnings available for the payment of cash dividends or other distributions on its common and preferred stock.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)

In November 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed an application seeking an order from the MPSC granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity and finding that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest. Entergy Mississippi proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; to design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and to implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Mississippi’s modernized power grid. The filing included an estimate of implementation costs for AMI of $132 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, and Entergy Mississippi provided a cost benefit analysis showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce a nominal benefit to customers of $496 million over a 15-year period, which when netted against the costs of AMI results in $183 million of net customer benefits. Entergy Mississippi also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $56 million at December 31, 2015, of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Mississippi proposed a 15-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019, subject to approval by the MPSC, with deployment of the communications network expected to begin in 2018. Entergy Mississippi proposed to include the AMI deployment costs and the quantified benefits in existing rate mechanisms, primarily through future formula rate plan filings and/or future energy cost recovery rider schedule re-determinations, as applicable. In May 2017 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and Entergy Mississippi entered into and filed a joint stipulation supporting Entergy Mississippi’s filing, and the MPSC issued an order approving the filing without material changes, finding that Entergy Mississippi’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest and granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The MPSC order also confirmed that Entergy Mississippi shall continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates.

Sources of Capital

Entergy Mississippi’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
debt or preferred stock issuances; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.


362

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Entergy Mississippi may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt and preferred stock prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest and dividend rates are favorable.

All debt and common and preferred stock issuances by Entergy Mississippi require prior regulatory approval.  Preferred stock and debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its corporate charter, bond indenture, and other agreements.  Entergy Mississippi has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.

Entergy Mississippi’s receivables from the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
2017 2016 2015 2014
(In Thousands)
$1,633 $10,595 $25,930 $644

See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.

Entergy Mississippi has four separate credit facilities in the aggregate amount of $102.5 million scheduled to expire May 2018. No borrowings were outstanding under the credit facilities as of December 31, 2017.  In addition, Entergy Mississippi is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO. As of December 31, 2017, a $15.3 million letter of credit was outstanding under Entergy Mississippi’s uncommitted letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the credit facilities.

Entergy Mississippi obtained authorizations from the FERC through October 2019 for short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $175 million at any time outstanding and long-term borrowings and security issuances. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s short-term borrowing limits.

State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery

The rates that Entergy Mississippi charges for electricity significantly influence its financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. Entergy Mississippi is regulated and the rates charged to its customers are determined in regulatory proceedings. A governmental agency, the MPSC, is primarily responsible for approval of the rates charged to customers.

Formula Rate Plan


In August 2012 the MPSC opened inquiries to review whether the current formulaic methodology used to calculate the return on common equity in both Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan and Mississippi Power Company’s annual formula rate plan was still appropriate or could be improved to better serve the public interest. The intent of this inquiry and review was for informational purposes only; the evaluation of any recommendations for changes to the existing methodology would take place in a general rate case or in the existing formula rate plan proceeding. In March 2013 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed its consultant’s report which noted the return on common equity estimation methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company are commonly used throughout the electric utility industry. The report suggested ways in which the methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company might be improved, but did not recommend specific changes in the return on common equity formulas or calculations at that time. In June 2014 the MPSC expanded the scope of the August 2012 inquiry to study the merits of adopting a uniform formula rate plan that could be applied, where possible in whole or in part, to both Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company in order to achieve greater consistency in the plans. The MPSC directed the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff to investigate and review Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan rider schedule and Mississippi Power Company’s Performance Evaluation Plan by considering the merits and deficiencies and possibilities for improvement of each and then to propose a uniform formula rate plan that, where possible, could be applicable to both companies. No procedural schedule has been set. In October 2014 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff conducted a public technical conference to discuss performance benchmarking and its potential application to the electric utilities’ formula rate plans. The docket remains open.

Entergy New Orleans

Fuel Recovery

Entergy New Orleans’s electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment tariff designed to reflect no more than targeted fuel and purchased power costs, adjusted by a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel and purchased power costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges.

To help stabilize gas costs, Entergy New Orleans seeks approval annually from the City Council to continue implementation of its natural gas hedging program consistent with the City Council’s stated policy objectives.  The program uses financial instruments to hedge exposure to volatility in the wholesale price of natural gas purchased to serve Entergy New Orleans gas customers.  Entergy New Orleans hedges up to 25% of actual gas sales made during the winter months.

Storm Cost Recovery

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s efforts to recover storm-related costs.

247

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Energy Efficiency Programs

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  The rate settlement provided an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provided a mechanism for Entergy New Orleans to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In January 2015 the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart program from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, with any remaining costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Council directed Entergy New Orleans to use a combination of guaranteed customer savings related to a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted and when new rates from the 2018 combined rate case, which includes a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect. In December 2017 the City Council approved an energy efficiency cost recovery rider as an interim funding mechanism for Energy Smart, subject to verification that no additional funding sources exist. In June 2018 the City Council also approved a resolution recommending that Entergy New Orleans allocate approximately $13.5 million of benefits resulting from the Tax Act to Energy Smart. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for the Energy Smart program from April 2020 through December 2022.

Entergy Texas

Fuel Recovery

Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including interest, that are not included in base rates.  Semi-annual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in fuel mix.  The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT.  The PUCT fuel cost proceedings are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements.

At the PUCT’s April 2013 open meeting, the PUCT Commissioners discussed their view that a purchased power capacity rider was good public policy. The PUCT issued an order in May 2013 adopting the rule allowing for a purchased power capacity rider, subject to an offsetting adjustment for load growth. The rule, as adopted, also includes a process for obtaining pre-approval by the PUCT of purchased power agreements. Entergy Texas has not exercised the option to recover its capacity costs under the new rider mechanism, but will continue to evaluate the benefits of utilizing the new rider to recover future capacity costs.

Electric Industry Restructuring

In June 2009, a law was enacted in Texas that required Entergy Texas to cease all activities relating to Entergy Texas’s transition to competition.  The law allows Entergy Texas to remain a part of the SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC) Region, although it does not prevent Entergy Texas from joining another power region.  The law provides that proceedings to certify a power region that Entergy Texas belongs to as a qualified power region can be initiated by the PUCT, or on motion by another party, when the conditions supporting such a proceeding
248

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

exist.  Under the law, the PUCT may not approve a transition to competition plan for Entergy Texas until the expiration of four years from the PUCT’s certification of Entergy Texas’s power region.

The law also contains provisions that allow Entergy Texas to take advantage of a cost recovery mechanism that permits annual filings for the recovery of reasonable and necessary expenditures for transmission infrastructure improvement and changes in wholesale transmission charges.  This mechanism was previously available to other non-ERCOT Texas utility companies, but not to Entergy Texas.

The law further amended already existing law that had required Entergy Texas to propose for PUCT approval a tariff to allow eligible customers the ability to contract for competitive generation.  The amending language in the law provides, among other things, that:  1) the tariff shall not be implemented in a manner that harms the sustainability or competitiveness of manufacturers who choose not to participate in the tariff; 2) Entergy Texas shall “purchase competitive generation service, selected by the customer, and provide the generation at retail to the customer;” and 3) Entergy Texas shall provide and price transmission service and ancillary services under that tariff at a rate that is unbundled from its cost of service.  The law directs that the PUCT may not issue an order on the tariff that is contrary to an applicable decision, rule, or policy statement of a federal regulatory agency having jurisdiction.

The PUCT determined that unrecovered costs that may be recovered through the rider consist only of those costs necessary to implement and administer the competitive generation program and do not include lost revenues or embedded generation costs.  The amount of customer load that may be included in the competitive generation service program is limited to 115 MW.

In September 2011 the PUCT adopted a proposed rule implementing a distribution cost recovery factor to recover capital and capital-related costs related to distribution infrastructure.  The distribution cost recovery factor permits utilities once per year to implement an increase or decrease in rates above or below amounts reflected in base rates to reflect depreciation expense, federal income tax and other taxes, and return on investment.  The distribution cost recovery factor rider may be changed a maximum of four times between base rate cases.

In September 2019 the PUCT initiated a rulemaking to promulgate a generation cost recovery factor rule, implementing legislation passed in the 2019 Texas legislative session intended to allow electric utilities to recover generation investments between base rate proceedings.  The PUCT approved the final rule in July 2020.

Franchises

Entergy Arkansas holds exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 308 incorporated cities and towns in Arkansas.  These franchises are unlimited in duration and continue unless the municipalities purchase the utility property.  In Arkansas franchises are considered to be contracts and, therefore, are terminable pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement and applicable statutes.

Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 175 incorporated municipalities and in the unincorporated areas of approximately 59 parishes of Louisiana.  Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide natural gas service to customers in the City of Baton Rouge and in East Baton Rouge Parish.  Municipal franchise agreement terms range from 25 to 60 years while parish franchise terms range from 25 to 99 years.

Entergy Mississippi has received from the MPSC certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide electric service to areas within 45 counties, including a number of municipalities, in western Mississippi.  Under Mississippi statutory law, such certificates are exclusive.  Entergy Mississippi may continue to serve in such municipalities upon payment of a statutory franchise fee, regardless of whether an original municipal franchise is still in existence.

249

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans provides electric and gas service in the City of New Orleans pursuant to indeterminate permits set forth in city ordinances.  These ordinances contain a continuing option for the City of New Orleans to purchase Entergy New Orleans’s electric and gas utility properties.

Entergy Texas holds a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PUCT to provide electric service to areas within approximately 27 counties in eastern Texas, and holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 68 incorporated municipalities.  Entergy Texas typically obtains 25-year franchise agreements as existing agreements expire.  Entergy Texas’s electric franchises expire over the period 2020-2058.

The business of System Energy is limited to wholesale power sales.  It has no distribution franchises.

Property and Other Generation Resources

Owned Generating Stations

The total capability of the generating stations owned and leased by the Utility operating companies and System Energy as of December 31, 2020, is indicated below:
 Owned and Leased Capability MW(a)
CompanyTotalGas/OilNuclearCoalHydroSolar
Entergy Arkansas5,175 2,091 1,817 1,194 73 — 
Entergy Louisiana11,317 8,827 2,144 346 — — 
Entergy Mississippi3,347 2,929 — 416 — 
Entergy New Orleans665 638 — — — 27 
Entergy Texas2,260 2,005 — 255 — — 
System Energy1,256 — 1,256 — — — 
Total24,020 16,490 5,217 2,211 73 29 

(a)“Owned and Leased Capability” is the dependable load carrying capability as demonstrated under actual operating conditions based on the primary fuel (assuming no curtailments) that each station was designed to utilize.

Summer peak load for the Utility has averaged 21,591 MW over the previous decade.

The Utility operating companies’ load and capacity projections are reviewed periodically to assess the need and timing for additional generating capacity and interconnections. These reviews consider existing and projected demand, the availability and price of power, the location of new load, the economy, Entergy’s clean energy and other public policy goals, environmental regulations, and the age and condition of Entergy’s existing infrastructure.

The Utility operating companies’ long-term resource strategy (Portfolio Transformation Strategy) calls for the bulk of capacity needs to be met through long-term resources, whether owned or contracted. Over the past decade, the Portfolio Transformation Strategy has resulted in the addition of about 8,801 MW of new long-term resources and the deactivation of about 4,664 MW of legacy generation. As MISO market participants, the Utility operating companies also participate in MISO’s Day Ahead and Real Time Energy and Ancillary Services markets to economically dispatch generation and purchase energy to serve customers reliably and at the lowest reasonable cost.

250

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Generation Resources

RFP Procurements

The Utility operating companies from time to time issue requests for proposals (RFP) to procure supply-side resources from sources other than the spot market to meet the unique regional needs of the Utility operating companies. The RFPs issued by the Utility operating companies have sought resources needed to meet near-term MISO reliability requirements as well as long-term requirements through a broad range of wholesale power products, including limited-term (1 to 3 years) and long-term contractual products and asset acquisitions. The RFP process has resulted in selections or acquisitions, including, among other things:

Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 980 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (previously referred to as the St. Charles generating facility) at its existing Little Gypsy electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in May 2019;
Entergy Texas’s construction of the 993 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Montgomery County Power Station at its existing Lewis Creek electric generating station. The facility began commercial operation in January 2021;
Entergy Louisiana’s construction of the 994 MW, combined-cycle, gas turbine Lake Charles generating facility at its existing Nelson electric generating station site. The facility began commercial operation in March 2020;
In October 2018, Entergy Mississippi signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Sunflower County, Mississippi. Entergy Mississippi received regulatory approval from the MPSC in April 2020, and the facility is scheduled to be in service by early 2022;
In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 800 acres in White County near Searcy, Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas received regulatory approval from the APSC in April 2020 and the facility is scheduled to be in service by the end of 2021;
Entergy New Orleans received regulatory approval in August 2019 to construct the New Orleans Solar Station (a 20 MW self-build solar project) located at the NASA Michoud Facility.The facility was placed in service in December 2020;
In June 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Lee County, Arkansas. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2022;
In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 180 MW to-be-constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,500 acres in Crittenden County, Arkansas. In January 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023; and
In June 2020, Entergy Texas signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW to-be- constructed solar photovoltaic energy facility that will be sited on approximately 1,200 acres in Liberty County near Dayton, Texas.In September 2020, Entergy Texas filed a petition with the PUCT seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals.Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2023.

251

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The RFP process has also resulted in the selection, or confirmation of the economic merits of, long-term purchased power agreements (PPAs), including, among others:

River Bend’s 30% life-of-unit PPA between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans for 100 MW related to Entergy Louisiana’s unregulated portion of the River Bend nuclear station, which portion was formerly owned by Cajun;
Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale base load capacity life-of-unit PPAs executed in 2003 totaling approximately 220 MW between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana (110 MW) and between Entergy Arkansas and Entergy New Orleans (110 MW) related to the sale of a portion of Entergy Arkansas’s coal and nuclear base load resources (which had not been included in Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates);
In May 2011, Entergy Texas and Calpine Energy Services, L.P. executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana purchases 50% of the facility’s capacity and energy from Entergy Texas. In July 2014, LS Power purchased the Carville Energy Center and replaced Calpine Energy Services as the counterparty to the agreement;
In September 2012, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 28 MW, with the potential to purchase an additional 9 MW when available, from Rain CII Carbon LLC’s petroleum coke calcining facility in Sulphur, Louisiana. The facility began commercial operation in May 2013. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with the facility;
In March 2013, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana executed a 20-year agreement for 8.5 MW from Agrilectric Power Partners, LP’s refurbished rice hull-fueled electric generation facility located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, now holds the agreement with Agrilectric;
In September 2013, Entergy Louisiana executed a 10-year agreement with TX LFG Energy, LP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Montauk Energy Holdings, LLC, to purchase approximately 3 MW from its landfill gas-fueled power generation facility located in Cleveland, Texas;
Entergy Mississippi’s cost-based purchase, beginning in January 2013, of 90 MW from Entergy Arkansas’s share of Grand Gulf (only 60 MW of this PPA came through the RFP process). Cost recovery for the 90 MW was approved by the MPSC in January 2013;
In April 2015, Entergy Arkansas and Stuttgart Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 81 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generation facility located near Stuttgart, Arkansas. The APSC approved the project and deliveries pursuant to that agreement commenced in June 2018;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and LS Power executed a 10-year agreement for 485 MW from the Carville Energy Center located in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and will begin in June 2022;
In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana and Occidental Chemical Corporation executed a 10-year agreement for 500 MW from the Taft Cogeneration facility located in Hahnville, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval and began in June 2018;
In June 2017, Entergy Arkansas and Chicot Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 100 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Chicot County, Arkansas. The transaction received regulatory approval and the PPA began in November 2020;
In February 2018, Entergy Louisiana and LA3 West Baton Rouge, LLC (Capital Region Solar project) executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in February 2019 and the PPA began in October 2020;
In July 2018, Entergy New Orleans and St. James Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 20 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021;
In August 2018, Entergy Louisiana and South Alexander Development I, LLC executed a five-year agreement for 5 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The PPA began in December 2020 and received regulatory approval in January 2021;
252

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

In February 2019, Entergy New Orleans and Iris Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 50 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Washington Parish, Louisiana. The transaction received regulatory approval in July 2019 and is targeting commercial operation in mid-2021; and
In August 2020, Entergy Texas and Umbriel Solar, LLC executed a 20-year agreement for 150 MW from a solar photovoltaic electric generating facility located in Polk County, Texas.The PPA is expected to start when the facility reaches commercial operation in 2023.

In April 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Texas, issued an RFP for combined-cycle gas turbine capacity and energy resources. The RFP was seeking up to 1,000 MW - 1,200 MW of capacity, capacity-related benefits, energy, other electric products, and environmental attributes, if any, from a single generation resource located in the “Eastern Region” of Entergy Texas’s service area. In December 2020, Entergy Texas posted notice that it has elected to proceed with the self-build alternative, Orange County Power Station. The self-build alternative will be conditioned on receipt of required internal and regulatory approvals.

In June 2020, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Louisiana, issued an RFP for solar photovoltaic resources. The RFP was seeking 300 MW of energy, capacity, capacity-related benefits, other electric products, and environmental attributes from eligible new-build solar photovoltaic generation resources. In December 2020, Entergy Louisiana concluded evaluations of the RFP. Three proposals have been placed on the primary selection list and two proposals have been placed on the secondary selection list. Negotiations are currently in progress.

In January 2021, Entergy Texas provided notice that it intends to issue an RFP for solar generation resources. The RFP is seeking a minimum of 200 MW through a combination of build-own-transfer agreements, self-build alternatives, and power purchase agreements that can provide cost-effective energy supply, fuel diversity, and other benefits to Entergy Texas customers.

Other Procurements From Third Parties

The Utility operating companies have also made resource acquisitions outside of the RFP process, including Entergy Mississippi’s January 2006 acquisition of the 480 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Attala power plant; Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s March 2008 acquisition of the 322 MW, simple-cycle, gas-fired Calcasieu Generating Facility; Entergy Louisiana’s April 2011 acquisition of the 580 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Acadia Energy Center Unit 2; Entergy Arkansas’s (Power Block 2), Entergy Louisiana’s (Power Blocks 3 and 4), and Entergy New Orleans’s (Power Block 1) March 2016 acquisitions of the 1,980 MW (summer rating), natural gas-fired, combined-cycle gas turbine Union Power Station power blocks, each rated at 495 MW (summer rating); and Entergy Mississippi’s October 2019 acquisition of the 810 MW, combined-cycle, natural gas-fired Choctaw Generating Station. The Utility operating companies have also entered into various limited- and long-term contracts in recent years as a result of bilateral negotiations.

The Washington Parish Energy Center is a 361 MW natural gas-fired peaking power plant approximately 60 miles north of New Orleans on a site Entergy Louisiana purchased from Calpine in 2019. In May 2018, Entergy Louisiana received LPSC approval of its certification application for this simple-cycle power plant to be developed pursuant to an agreement between Calpine and Entergy Louisiana. Calpine began construction on the plant in early 2019 and Entergy Louisiana purchased the plant upon completion in November 2020.

The Hardin County Peaking Facility is an existing 147 MW simple-cycle gas-fired peaking power plant in Kountze, Texas, owned by East Texas Electric Cooperative. Entergy Texas is currently seeking regulatory certification to move forward with the purchase of the facility. The facility has been in operation since January 2010.


253

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Power Through Program

In December 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to amend its certificate of convenience and necessity to own and operate up to 75 MW of natural gas-fired distributed generation that is to be installed at commercial and industrial customer premises. If approved, Entergy Texas would own and operate a fleet of generators ranging from 100 kW to 10 MW that would supply a portion of Entergy Texas’s long-term resource needs and enhance the resiliency of Entergy Texas’s electric grid. This fleet of generators would also be available to customers during outages to supply backup electric service as part of a program known as “Power Through.”

Interconnections

The Utility operating companies’ generating units are interconnected to a transmission system operating at various voltages up to 500 kV.  These generating units consist of steam-electric production facilities, combustion-turbine generators, pressurized and boiling water nuclear reactors, and inverter-based technologies operating in the MISO energy and ancillary services market. Entergy’s Utility operating companies are MISO market participants and are interconnected with many neighboring utilities.  MISO is an essential link in the safe, cost-effective delivery of electric power across all or parts of 15 U.S. states and the Canadian province of Manitoba. As a Regional Transmission Organization, MISO assures consumers of unbiased regional grid management and open access to the transmission facilities under MISO’s functional supervision. In addition, the Utility operating companies are members of SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). SERC is a nonprofit corporation responsible for promoting and improving the reliability, adequacy, and critical infrastructure of the bulk power supply systems in all or portions of 16 central and southeastern states.SERC serves as a regional entity with delegated authority from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) for the purpose of proposing and enforcing Bulk Electric System reliability standards within the SERC Region.

Gas Property

As of December 31, 2020, Entergy New Orleans distributed and transported natural gas for distribution within New Orleans, Louisiana, through approximately 2,600 miles of gas pipeline.  As of December 31, 2020, the gas properties of Entergy Louisiana, which are located in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, were not material to Entergy Louisiana’s financial position.

Title

The Utility operating companies’ generating stations are generally located on properties owned in fee simple.  Most of the substations and transmission and distribution lines are constructed on private property or public rights-of-way pursuant to easements, servitudes, or appropriate franchises.  Some substation properties are owned in fee simple.  The Utility operating companies generally have the right of eminent domain, whereby they may perfect title to, or secure easements or servitudes on, private property for their utility operations.

Substantially all of the physical properties and assets owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy are subject to the liens of mortgages securing bonds issued by those companies.  The Lewis Creek generating station of Entergy Texas was acquired by merger with a subsidiary of Entergy Texas and is currently not subject to the lien of the Entergy Texas indenture.


254

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Fuel Supply

The sources of generation and average fuel cost per kWh for the Utility operating companies and System Energy for the years 2018-2020 were:
 Natural GasNuclearCoalPurchased PowerMISO Purchases
Year% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh% of GenCents Per kWh
202047 1.92 29 0.57 2.54 4.36 13 2.48 
201940 2.33 28 0.73 2.31 4.86 18 2.71 
201839 2.84 27 0.84 2.24 5.23 17 3.71 

Actual 2020 and projected 2021 sources of generation for the Utility operating companies and System Energy, including certain power purchases from affiliates under life of unit power purchase agreements, including the Unit Power Sales Agreement, are:
 Natural GasNuclearCoalPurchased Power (d)MISO Purchases (e)
 2020202120202021202020212020202120202021
Entergy Arkansas (a)24 %35 %60 %51 %10 %13 %%%%— 
Entergy Louisiana51 %59 %26 %27 %%%%12 %13 %— 
Entergy Mississippi (b)73 %69 %14 %22 %%%— — %— 
Entergy New Orleans (b)55 %56 %33 %40 %%%%%%— 
Entergy Texas39 %60 %11 %13 %%%23 %21 %25 %— 
System Energy (c)— — 100 %100 %— — — — — — 
Utility (a) (b)47 %55 %29 %31 %%%%%13 %— 

(a)Hydroelectric power provided less than 1% of Entergy Arkansas’s generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of its generation in 2021.
(b)Solar power provided less than 1% of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2020 and is expected to provide less than 1% of each of Entergy Mississippi’s and Entergy New Orleans's generation in 2021.
(c)Capacity and energy from System Energy’s interest in Grand Gulf is allocated as follows under the Unit Power Sales Agreement: Entergy Arkansas - 36%; Entergy Louisiana - 14%; Entergy Mississippi - 33%; and Entergy New Orleans - 17%.  Pursuant to purchased power agreements, Entergy Arkansas is selling a portion of its owned capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.
(d)Excludes MISO purchases.
(e)In December 2013, Entergy integrated its transmission system into the MISO RTO. Entergy offers all of its generation into the MISO energy market on a day-ahead and real-time basis and bids for power in the MISO energy market to serve the demand of its customers, with MISO making dispatch decisions. The MISO purchases metric provided for 2020 is not projected for 2021.

Some of the Utility’s gas-fired plants are also capable of using fuel oil, if necessary. Although based on current economics the Utility does not expect fuel oil use in 2021, it is possible that various operational events including weather or pipeline maintenance may require the use of fuel oil.

Natural Gas

The Utility operating companies have long-term firm and short-term interruptible gas contracts for both supply and transportation. Over 50% of the Utility operating companies’ power plants maintain some level of long-
255

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

term firm transportation. Short-term contracts and spot-market purchases satisfy additional gas requirements.  Entergy Texas owns a gas storage facility that provides reliable and flexible natural gas service to certain generating stations.

Many factors, including wellhead deliverability, storage, pipeline capacity, and demand requirements of end users, influence the availability and price of natural gas supplies for power plants.  Demand is primarily tied to weather conditions as well as to the prices and availability of other energy sources.  Pursuant to federal and state regulations, gas supplies to power plants may be interrupted during periods of shortage.  To the extent natural gas supplies are disrupted or natural gas prices significantly increase, the Utility operating companies may in some instances use alternate fuels, such as oil when available, or rely to a larger extent on coal, nuclear generation, and purchased power.

Coal

Entergy Arkansas has committed to seven one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 85% of the total coal supply needs in 2021.  These contracts are staggered in term so that not all contracts have to be renewed the same year.  The remaining 15% of total coal requirements will be satisfied by contracts with a term of less than one year.  Based on continued improved Powder River Basin (PRB) coal deliveries by rail and the high cost of alternate sources and modes of transportation, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Entergy Arkansas during 2021.  Coal will be transported to Arkansas via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Arkansas’s rail transportation requirements for 2021.

Entergy Louisiana has committed to five one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately 90% of Nelson Unit 6 coal needs in 2021.  If needed, additional PRB coal will be purchased through contracts with a term of less than one year to provide the remaining supply needs.  For the same reasons as for Entergy Arkansas’s plants, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Nelson Unit 6 during 2021.  Coal will be transported to Nelson primarily via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Louisiana’s rail transportation requirements for 2021.

For the year 2020, coal transportation delivery rates to Entergy Arkansas-and Entergy Louisiana-operated coal-fired units were adequate to meet supply needs and obligations, and it is expected that delivery times in 2021 will continue to be consistent. Both Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana control a sufficient number of railcars to satisfy the rail transportation requirement.

The operator of Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3, Louisiana Generating, LLC, has advised Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas that it has adequate rail car and barge capacity to meet the volumes of PRB coal requested for 2021.  Entergy Louisiana’s and Entergy Texas’s coal nomination requests to Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3 are made on an annual basis.

Nuclear Fuel

The nuclear fuel cycle consists of the following:

mining and milling of uranium ore to produce a concentrate;
conversion of the concentrate to uranium hexafluoride gas;
enrichment of the uranium hexafluoride gas;
fabrication of nuclear fuel assemblies for use in fueling nuclear reactors; and
disposal of spent fuel.

The Registrant Subsidiaries that own nuclear plants, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, are responsible through a shared regulated uranium pool for contracts to acquire nuclear material to be used in fueling Entergy’s Utility nuclear units.  These companies own the materials and services in this shared regulated
256

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

uranium pool on a pro rata fractional basis determined by the nuclear generation capability of each company.  Any liabilities for obligations of the pooled contracts are on a several but not joint basis.  The shared regulated uranium pool maintains inventories of nuclear materials during the various stages of processing.  The Registrant Subsidiaries purchase enriched uranium hexafluoride for their nuclear plant reload requirements at the average inventory cost from the shared regulated uranium pool.  Entergy Operations, Inc. contracts separately for the fabrication of nuclear fuel as agent on behalf of each of the Registrant Subsidiaries that owns a nuclear plant.  All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and the owner of a nuclear power plant.

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, the Utility nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable or fixed prices through most of 2023. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners.  There are a number of possible supply alternatives that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, including potentially drawing upon Entergy’s inventory intended for later generation periods depending upon its risk management strategy at that time, although the pricing of any alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time.  In addition, some nuclear fuel contracts are on a non-fixed price basis subject to prevailing prices at the time of delivery.

The effects of market price changes may be reduced and deferred by risk management strategies, such as negotiation of floor and ceiling amounts for long-term contracts, buying for inventory or entering into forward physical contracts at fixed prices when Entergy believes it is appropriate and useful.  Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S.

Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. There are fewer of these providers than for uranium. For conversion and enrichment services, like uranium, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures as needed to ensure supply of enriched uranium for the reliable fabrication of nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the effective performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel, therefore, Entergy provides additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight for the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy each have made arrangements to lease nuclear fuel and related equipment and services.  The lessors, which are consolidated in the financial statements of Entergy and the applicable Registrant Subsidiary, finance the acquisition and ownership of nuclear fuel through credit agreements and the issuance of notes.  These credit facilities are subject to periodic renewal, and the notes are issued periodically, typically for terms between three and seven years.

Natural Gas Purchased for Resale

Entergy New Orleans has several suppliers of natural gas.  Its system is interconnected with one interstate and three intrastate pipelines.  Entergy New Orleans has a “no-notice” service gas purchase contract with CenterPoint Energy Services which guarantees Entergy New Orleans gas delivery at specific delivery points and at any volume within the minimum and maximum set forth in the contract amounts.  The CenterPoint Energy Service gas supply is transported to Entergy New Orleans pursuant to a transportation service agreement with Gulf South Pipeline Co.  This service is subject to FERC-approved rates.  Entergy New Orleans also makes interruptible spot market purchases.

Entergy Louisiana purchased natural gas for resale in 2020 under a firm contract from Sequent Energy Management L.P.  The gas is delivered through a combination of intrastate and interstate pipelines.

257

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

As a result of the implementation of FERC-mandated interstate pipeline restructuring in 1993, curtailments of interstate gas supply could occur if Entergy Louisiana’s or Entergy New Orleans’s suppliers failed to perform their obligations to deliver gas under their supply agreements.  Gulf South Pipeline Co. could curtail transportation capacity only in the event of pipeline system constraints.

Federal Regulation of the Utility

State or local regulatory authorities, as described above, regulate the retail rates of the Utility operating companies.  The FERC regulates wholesale sales of electricity rates and interstate transmission of electricity, including System Energy’s sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of federal regulation proceedings.

System Agreement (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Prior to each operating company’s termination of participation in the System Agreement (Entergy Arkansas in December 2013, Entergy Mississippi in November 2015, and Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each in August 2016), the Utility operating companies engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which was a rate schedule approved by the FERC. Under the terms of the System Agreement, generating capacity and other power resources were jointly operated by the Utility operating companies that were participating in the System Agreement.  The System Agreement provided, among other things, that parties having generating reserves greater than their allocated share of reserves (long companies) would receive payments from those parties having generating reserves that were less than their allocated share of reserves (short companies).  Such payments were at amounts sufficient to cover certain of the long companies’ costs for intermediate and peaking oil/gas-fired generation, including operating expenses, fixed charges on debt, dividend requirements on preferred equity, and a fair rate of return on common equity investment.  Under the System Agreement, the rates used to compensate long companies were based on costs associated with the long companies’ steam electric generating units fueled by oil or gas and having an annual average heat rate above 10,000 Btu/kWh.  In addition, for all energy exchanged among the Utility operating companies under the System Agreement, the companies purchasing exchange energy were required to pay the cost of fuel consumed in generating such energy plus a charge to cover other associated costs.

Although the System Agreement has terminated, certain of the Utility operating companies’ and their retail regulators are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC and in federal courts. The proceedings include challenges to the allocation of costs as defined by the System Agreement and other matters. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of legal proceedings at the FERC and in federal courts involving the System Agreement.

Transmission and MISO Markets

In December 2013 the Utility operating companies integrated into the MISO RTO. Although becoming a member of MISO did not affect the ownership by the Utility operating companies of their transmission facilities or the responsibility for maintaining those facilities, MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. MISO also exercises functional control of transmission planning and congestion management and provides schedules and pricing for the commitment and dispatch of generation that is offered into MISO’s markets, as well as pricing for load that bids into the markets. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a bilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. Each Utility operating company has its own transmission pricing zone and a formula rate template (included as Attachment O to the MISO tariff) used to
258

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

establish transmission rates within MISO. The terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs, are subject to regulation by the FERC.

System Energy and Related Agreements

System Energy recovers costs related to its interest in Grand Gulf through rates charged to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans for capacity and energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (described below).  In July 2001 a rate proceeding commenced by System Energy at the FERC in 1995 became final, with the FERC approving a prospective 10.94% return on equity.    In 1998 the FERC approved requests by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi to accelerate a portion of their Grand Gulf purchased power obligations.  Entergy Arkansas’s and Entergy Mississippi’s acceleration of Grand Gulf purchased power obligations ceased effective July 2001 and July 2003, respectively, as approved by the FERC. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of complaints filed with the FERC regarding System Energy’s return on equity.

Unit Power Sales Agreement

The Unit Power Sales Agreement allocates capacity, energy, and the related costs from System Energy’s ownership and leasehold interests in Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas (36%), Entergy Louisiana (14%), Entergy Mississippi (33%), and Entergy New Orleans (17%).  Each of these companies is obligated to make payments to System Energy for its entitlement of capacity and energy on a full cost-of-service basis regardless of the quantity of energy delivered.  Payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are System Energy’s only source of operating revenue.  The financial condition of System Energy depends upon the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf and the receipt of such payments.  Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans generally recover payments made under the Unit Power Sales Agreement through rates charged to their customers.

In the case of Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana, payments are also recovered through sales of electricity from their respective retained shares of Grand Gulf.  Under a settlement agreement entered into with the APSC in 1985 and amended in 1988, Entergy Arkansas retains 22% of its 36% share of Grand Gulf-related costs and recovers the remaining 78% of its share in rates.  In the event that Entergy Arkansas is not able to sell its retained share to third parties, it may sell such energy to its retail customers at a price equal to its avoided cost, which is currently less than Entergy Arkansas’s cost from its retained share.  Entergy Arkansas has life-of-resources purchased power agreements with Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans that sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s retained share of Grand Gulf to those companies, with the remainder of the retained share being sold to Entergy Mississippi through a separate life-of-resources purchased power agreement.  In a series of LPSC orders, court decisions, and agreements from late 1985 to mid-1988, Entergy Louisiana was granted rate relief with respect to costs associated with Entergy Louisiana’s share of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf, subject to certain terms and conditions.  Entergy Louisiana retains and does not recover from retail ratepayers 18% of its 14% share of the costs of Grand Gulf capacity and energy and recovers the remaining 82% of its share in rates.  Entergy Louisiana is allowed to recover through the fuel adjustment clause at 4.6 cents per kWh for the energy related to its retained portion of these costs.  Alternatively, Entergy Louisiana may sell such energy to non-affiliated parties at prices above the fuel adjustment clause recovery amount, subject to the LPSC’s approval. Entergy Arkansas also has a life-of-resources purchased power agreement with Entergy Mississippi to sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s non-retained share of Grand Gulf. Entergy Mississippi was granted rate relief for those purchases by the MPSC through its annual unit power cost rate mechanism.

Availability Agreement

The Availability Agreement among System Energy and Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans was entered into in 1974 in connection with the financing by System Energy
259

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

of Grand Gulf. The Availability Agreement provides that System Energy make available to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans all capacity and energy available from System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans also agreed severally to pay System Energy monthly for the right to receive capacity and energy from Grand Gulf in amounts that (when added to any amounts received by System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement) would at least equal System Energy’s total operating expenses for Grand Gulf (including depreciation at a specified rate and expenses incurred in a permanent shutdown of Grand Gulf) and interest charges.

The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement are fixed as follows: Entergy Arkansas - 17.1%; Entergy Louisiana - 26.9%; Entergy Mississippi - 31.3%; and Entergy New Orleans - 24.7%. The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement would remain in effect and would govern payments made under such agreement in the event of a shortfall of funds available to System Energy from other sources, including payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

System Energy has assigned its rights to payments and advances from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under the Availability Agreement as security for its two outstanding series of first mortgage bonds.  In these assignments, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans further agreed that, in the event they were prohibited by governmental action from making payments under the Availability Agreement (for example, if the FERC reduced or disallowed such payments as constituting excessive rates), they would then make subordinated advances to System Energy in the same amounts and at the same times as the prohibited payments. System Energy would not be allowed to repay these subordinated advances so long as it remained in default under the related indebtedness or in other similar circumstances.

Each of the assignment agreements relating to the Availability Agreement provides that Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans will make payments directly to System Energy. However, if there is an event of default, those payments must be made directly to the holders of indebtedness that are the beneficiaries of such assignment agreements. The payments must be made pro rata according to the amount of the respective obligations secured.

The obligations of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans to make payments under the Availability Agreement are subject to the receipt and continued effectiveness of all necessary regulatory approvals.  Sales of capacity and energy under the Availability Agreement would require that the Availability Agreement be submitted to the FERC for approval with respect to the terms of such sale. No such filing with the FERC has been made because sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf are being made pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement.  If, for any reason, sales of capacity and energy are made in the future pursuant to the Availability Agreement, the jurisdictional portions of the Availability Agreement would be submitted to the FERC for approval.

Since commercial operation of Grand Gulf began, payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement to System Energy have exceeded the amounts payable under the Availability Agreement and, therefore, no payments under the Availability Agreement have ever been required.  If Entergy Arkansas or Entergy Mississippi fails to make its Unit Power Sales Agreement payments, and System Energy is unable to obtain funds from other sources, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans could become subject to claims or demands by System Energy or its creditors for payments or advances under the Availability Agreement (or the assignments thereof) equal to the difference between their required Unit Power Sales Agreement payments and their required Availability Agreement payments because their Availability Agreement obligations exceed their Unit Power Sales Agreement obligations.

The Availability Agreement may be terminated, amended, or modified by mutual agreement of the parties thereto, without further consent of any assignees or other creditors.
260

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Service Companies

Entergy Services, a limited liability company wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation, provides management, administrative, accounting, legal, engineering, and other services primarily to the Utility operating companies, but also provides services to Entergy Wholesale Commodities. Entergy Operations is also wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation and provides nuclear management, operations and maintenance services under contract for ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, subject to the owner oversight of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, respectively.  Entergy Services and Entergy Operations provide their services to the Utility operating companies and System Energy on an “at cost” basis, pursuant to cost allocation methodologies for these service agreements that were approved by the FERC.

Jurisdictional Separation of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. into Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas

Effective December 31, 2007, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. completed a jurisdictional separation into two vertically integrated utility companies, one operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the PUCT, Entergy Texas, and the other operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the LPSC, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana.  Entergy Texas owns all Entergy Gulf States, Inc. distribution and transmission assets located in Texas, the gas-fired generating plants located in Texas, undivided 42.5% ownership shares of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.’s 70% ownership interest in Nelson Unit 6 and 42% ownership interest in Big Cajun 2, Unit 3, which are coal-fired generating plants located in Louisiana, and other assets and contract rights to the extent related to utility operations in Texas.  Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, owns all of the remaining assets that were owned by Entergy Gulf States, Inc.  On a book value basis, approximately 58.1% of the Entergy Gulf States, Inc. assets were allocated to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and approximately 41.9% were allocated to Entergy Texas.

Entergy Texas purchases from Entergy Louisiana pursuant to a life-of-unit purchased power agreement a 42.5% share of capacity and energy from the 70% of River Bend subject to retail regulation.  Entergy Texas was allocated a share of River Bend’s nuclear and environmental liabilities that is identical to the share of the plant’s output purchased by Entergy Texas under the purchased power agreement.  In connection with the termination of the System Agreement effective August 31, 2016, the purchased power agreements that were put in place for certain legacy units at the time of the jurisdictional separation were also terminated at that time. See Note 2 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the purchased power agreements.

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana Business Combination

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana then merged into New Entergy Louisiana with New Entergy Louisiana surviving the merger. Thereupon, Old Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” to “EL Investment Company, LLC” and New Entergy Louisiana changed its name from “Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC” to “Entergy Louisiana, LLC” (Entergy Louisiana). With the completion of the business combination, Entergy Louisiana holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed the liabilities, of Old Entergy Louisiana and Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana.

261

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy New Orleans Internal Restructuring

In November 2017, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans, Inc. undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy New Orleans, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at a price of approximately $21 million, which included a call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. converted from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New Orleans Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power), and Entergy New Orleans Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New Orleans Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2017, Entergy New Orleans, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Group, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans Power then changed its name to Entergy New Orleans, LLC. Entergy New Orleans, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Arkansas Internal Restructuring

In November 2018, Entergy Arkansas undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $32.7 million.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. converted from an Arkansas corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Arkansas, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Arkansas Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Arkansas Power), and Entergy Arkansas Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Arkansas Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Property, Inc., and Entergy Arkansas Power then changed its name to Entergy Arkansas, LLC. Entergy Arkansas, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. The transaction was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Mississippi Internal Restructuring

In November 2018, Entergy Mississippi undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:

Entergy Mississippi, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock, at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $21.2 million.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. converted from a Mississippi corporation to a Texas corporation.
262

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Mississippi, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Mississippi Power and Light), and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Mississippi, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Mississippi, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Mississippi Power and Light to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Mississippi Power and Light is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 2018, Entergy Mississippi, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Enterprises, Inc., and Entergy Mississippi Power and Light then changed its name to Entergy Mississippi, LLC. Entergy Mississippi, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Mississippi, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants, located in the northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities revenues are primarily derived from sales of energy and generation capacity from these plants. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also provides operations and management services, including decommissioning-related services, to nuclear power plants owned by non-affiliated entities in the United States. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers.

See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.

Property

Nuclear Generating Stations

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership of the following nuclear power plants:
Power PlantMarketIn Service YearAcquiredLocationCapacity - Reactor TypeLicense Expiration Date
Indian Point 3 (a)NYISO1976Nov. 2000Buchanan, NY1,041 MW - Pressurized Water2025 (a)
Indian Point 2 (a)NYISO1974Sept. 2001Buchanan, NY1,028 MW - Pressurized Water2024 (a)
Palisades (b)MISO1971Apr. 2007Covert,
MI
811 MW - Pressurized Water2031 (b)

(a)Power operations ceased at the Indian Point 2 plant in April 2020. The fuel was permanently removed from the reactor vessel and placed in the spent fuel pool in May 2020. The Indian Point 3 plant is expected to cease operations on April 30, 2021. Entergy and Holtec jointly filed a license transfer application with the NRC in November 2019, requesting approval for the transfer of the Indian Point plants, along with their nuclear decommissioning trusts and decommissioning liabilities, from Entergy to Holtec. The NRC approved the license transfer application on November 23, 2020.
263

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

(b)The Palisades plant is expected to cease operations on May 31, 2022. There is a contract to sell the plant to Holtec subject to NRC and other regulatory approvals.

See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the operation and planned shutdown and sale of each of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of two non-operating nuclear facilities, Big Rock Point in Michigan and Indian Point 1 in New York that were acquired when Entergy purchased the Palisades and Indian Point 2 nuclear plants, respectively. These facilities are in various stages of the decommissioning process. Both Big Rock Point and Indian Point 1 are under contract to be sold with their respective plants.

Non-nuclear Generating Stations

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, or interests in joint ventures that own, the following non-nuclear power plants:
PlantLocationOwnershipNet Owned Capacity (a)Type
Independence Unit 2;   842 MWNewark, AR14%    121 MW(b)Coal
RS Cogen;   425 MW (c)Lake Charles, LA50%213 MWGas/Steam
Nelson Unit 6;   550 MWWestlake, LA11%       60 MW(b)Coal

(a)“Net Owned Capacity” refers to the nameplate rating on the generating unit.
(b)The owned MW capacity is the portion of the plant capacity owned by Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  For a complete listing of Entergy’s jointly-owned generating stations, refer to “Jointly-Owned Generating Stations” in Note 1 to the financial statements.
(c)Indirectly owned through an interest in an unconsolidated joint venture. In December 2020, Entergy’s wholly-owned subsidiary with a direct interest in RS Cogen, LLC entered into a membership interest purchase agreement with a subsidiary of the other 50% equity partner to sell its 50% membership interest in the joint venture to the equity partner. The targeted closing date for the transaction is October 2022.

Independent System Operators

The Indian Point plants fall under the authority of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). The Palisades plant falls under the authority of the MISO. The primary purpose of NYISO and MISO is to direct the operations of the major generation and transmission facilities in their respective regions; ensure grid reliability; administer and monitor wholesale electricity markets; and plan for their respective region’s energy needs.

Energy and Capacity Sales

As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy in the day ahead or spot markets.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities also sells unforced capacity, which allows load-serving entities to meet specified reserve and related requirements placed on them by the ISOs in their respective areas.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward physical power contracts consist of contracts to sell energy only, contracts to sell capacity only, and bundled contracts in which it sells both capacity and energy.  While the terminology and payment mechanics vary in these contracts, each of these types of contracts requires Entergy Wholesale Commodities to deliver MWh of energy, make capacity available, or both.See “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for additional information regarding these contracts.

264

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

As part of the purchase of the Palisades plant in 2007, Entergy executed a 15-year PPA with the seller, Consumers Energy, for 100% of the plant’s output, excluding any future uprates. Under the purchased power agreement, Consumers Energy receives the value of any new environmental credits for the first ten years of the agreement. Palisades and Consumers Energy will share on a 50/50 basis the value of any new environmental credits for years 11 through 15 of the agreement. The environmental credits are defined as benefits from a change in law that causes capability of the plant as of the purchase date to become a tradable attribute (e.g., emission credit, renewable energy credit, environmental credit, “green” credit, etc.) or otherwise to have a market value. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on May 31, 2022 and transfer to Holtec thereafter.

Customers

Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ customers for the sale of both energy and capacity from its nuclear plants include retail power providers, utilities, electric power co-operatives, power trading organizations, and other power generation companies. These customers include Consumers Energy, the company from which Entergy purchased the Palisades plant, and NYISO and MISO. Substantially all the credit exposure associated with the planned energy output under contract for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants is with counterparties or their guarantors that have public investment grade credit ratings.

Competition

The NYISO market is highly competitive. Entergy Wholesale Commodities has numerous competitors in New York including generation companies affiliated with regulated utilities, other independent power producers, municipal and co-operative generators, owners of co-generation plants and wholesale power marketers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities is an independent power producer, which means it generates power for sale to third parties at day ahead or spot market prices to the extent that the power is not sold under a fixed price contract. Municipal and co-operative generators also generate power but use most of it to deliver power to their municipal or co-operative power customers. Owners of co-generation plants produce power primarily for their own consumption. Wholesale power marketers do not own generation; rather they buy power from generators or other market participants and resell it to retail providers or other market participants. Competition in the New York power market is affected by, among other factors, the amount of generation and transmission capacity in these markets. MISO does not have a centralized clearing capacity market, but load serving entities do meet most of their capacity needs through bilateral contracts and self-supply with a smaller portion coming through voluntary MISO auctions. Almost all of Palisades’ current output is contracted to Consumers Energy through May 2022. Entergy Wholesale Commodities does not expect to be materially affected by competition in the MISO market in the near term.

Seasonality

Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues and operating income are subject to fluctuations during the year due to seasonal factors, weather conditions, and contract pricing. When outdoor and cooling water temperatures are low, generally during colder months, Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants operate more efficiently, and consequently, generate more electricity. Many of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contracts provide for shaped pricing over the course of the year. As a result of these factors, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues are typically higher in the first and third quarters than in the second and fourth quarters.

Fuel Supply

Nuclear Fuel

See “Fuel Supply - Nuclear Fuel” in the Utility portion of Part I, Item 1 for a discussion of the nuclear fuel cycle and markets. Entergy Nuclear Fuels Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, is responsible for contracts to acquire nuclear materials, except for fuel fabrication, for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants,
265

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

while Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. acts as the agent for the purchase of nuclear fuel assembly fabrication services. All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and each of the nuclear power plant owners. The nuclear fuel supply portfolio for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment has been adjusted to reflect reduced overall requirements related to the planned permanent shutdowns of the Indian Point 3 and Palisades plants. Fuel procurement for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment was primarily limited to the requirements of the Palisades plant’s final refueling in 2020.

Other Business Activities

Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC (ENPM) was formed in 2005 to centralize the power marketing function for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants. Upon its formation, ENPM entered into long-term power purchase agreements with the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries that own nuclear power plants (generating subsidiaries). As part of a series of agreements, ENPM agreed to assume and/or otherwise service the existing power purchase agreements that were in effect between the generating subsidiaries and their customers. ENPM’s functions include origination of new energy and capacity transactions and generation scheduling.

Services provided by either Entergy Nuclear, Inc. or other Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries include engineering, operations and maintenance, fuel procurement, management and supervision, technical support and training, administrative support, and other managerial or technical services required to operate, maintain, and decommission nuclear electric power facilities.

TLG Services, a subsidiary in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment, offers decommissioning, engineering, and related services to nuclear power plant owners.

Entergy provides plant operation support services for the 800 MW Cooper Nuclear Station located near Brownville, Nebraska. In 2010 an Entergy subsidiary signed an agreement to extend the management support services to Cooper Nuclear Station by 15 years, through January 2029.

Regulation of Entergy’s Business

Federal Power Act

The Federal Power Act provides the FERC the authority to regulate:

the transmission and wholesale sale of electric energy in interstate commerce;
the reliability of the high voltage interstate transmission system through reliability standards;
sale or acquisition of certain assets;
securities issuances;
the licensing of certain hydroelectric projects;
certain other activities, including accounting policies and practices of electric and gas utilities; and
changes in control of FERC jurisdictional entities or rate schedules.

The Federal Power Act gives the FERC jurisdiction over the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf capacity and energy provided to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans and over the rates charged by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana to unaffiliated wholesale customers. The FERC also regulates wholesale power sales between the Utility operating companies. In addition, the FERC regulates the MISO RTO, an independent entity that maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy, capacity, and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. FERC regulation of the MISO RTO includes regulation of the design and implementation of the wholesale markets administered by the MISO RTO, as well as the rates, terms, and conditions of open access transmission service over the member systems and the allocation of costs associated with transmission upgrades.
266

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


Entergy Arkansas holds a FERC license that expires in 2053 for two hydroelectric projects totaling 70 MW of capacity.

State Regulation

Utility

Entergy Arkansas is subject to regulation by the APSC as to the following:

utility service;
utility service areas;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery rider;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
the acquisition, sale, or lease of any public utility plant or property constituting an operating unit or system;
certificates of convenience and necessity and certificates of environmental compatibility and public need, as applicable, for generating and transmission facilities;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering;
integrated resource planning;
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control; and
the issuance and sale of certain securities.

Additionally, Entergy Arkansas serves a limited number of retail customers in Tennessee. Pursuant to legislation enacted in Tennessee, Entergy Arkansas is subject to complaints before the Tennessee Regulatory Authority only if it fails to treat its retail customers in Tennessee in the same manner as its retail customers in Arkansas. Additionally, Entergy Arkansas maintains limited facilities in Missouri but does not provide retail electric service to customers in Missouri. Although Entergy Arkansas obtained a certificate with respect to its Missouri facilities, Entergy Arkansas is not subject to retail ratemaking or other regulatory jurisdiction in Missouri.

Entergy Louisiana’s electric and gas business is subject to regulation by the LPSC as to the following:

utility service;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment clause and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission projects;
certification of capacity acquisitions, both for owned capacity and purchase power contracts;
procurement process to acquire over 50 MW;
audits of the environmental adjustment charge, avoided cost payment to Qualifying Facilities, and energy efficiency rider;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.

Entergy Mississippi is subject to regulation by the MPSC as to the following:

utility service;
utility service areas;
267

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the energy cost recovery mechanism;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
certification of generating facilities and certain transmission projects;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers, acquisitions, and other changes of control.

Entergy Mississippi is also subject to regulation by the APSC as to the certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the Independence Station, which is located in Arkansas.

Entergy New Orleans is subject to regulation by the City Council as to the following:

utility service;
retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates;
fuel cost recovery, including audits of the fuel adjustment charge and purchased gas adjustment charge;
terms and conditions of service;
service standards;
audit of the environmental adjustment charge;
certification of the construction or extension of any new plant, equipment, property, or facility that comprises more than 2% of the utility’s rate base;
integrated resource planning;
net energy metering;
issuance and sale of certain securities; and
utility mergers and acquisitions and other changes of control.

To the extent authorized by governing legislation, Entergy Texas is subject to the original jurisdiction of the municipal authorities of a number of incorporated cities in Texas with appellate jurisdiction over such matters residing in the PUCT.  Entergy Texas is also subject to regulation by the PUCT as to the following:

retail rates and charges, including depreciation rates, and terms and conditions of service in unincorporated areas of its service territory, and in municipalities that have ceded jurisdiction to the PUCT;
fuel recovery, including reconciliations (audits) of the fuel adjustment charges;
service standards;
certification of certain transmission and generation projects;
utility service areas, including extensions into new areas;
avoided cost payments to Qualifying Facilities;
net energy metering; and
utility mergers, sales/acquisitions/leases of plants over $10 million, sales of greater than 50% voting stock of utilities, and transfers of controlling interest in or operation of utilities.

268

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the operation of nuclear plants is heavily regulated by the NRC, which has broad power to impose licensing and safety-related requirements.  The NRC has broad authority to impose civil penalties or shut down a unit, or both, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, as owners of all or portions of ANO, River Bend and Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively, and Entergy Operations, as the licensee and operator of these units, are subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC. Entergy subsidiaries in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment are subject to the NRC’s jurisdiction as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, Palisades, and Big Rock Point.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

Spent Nuclear Fuel

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy Arkansas is the only one of the Utility operating companies that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and has a recorded liability as of December 31, 2020 of $192.0 million for the one-time fee. Entergy accepted assignment of the Pilgrim, FitzPatrick, Indian Point 3, Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2, Vermont Yankee, Palisades, and Big Rock Point spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE held by their previous owners. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the sale of the plant, completed in March 2017. The Vermont Yankee spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to NorthStar as part of the sale of the plant in January 2019. The Pilgrim spent fuel disposal contract was transferred to Holtec as part of the sale of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company in August 2019. The owners of these plants previous to Entergy have paid or retained liability for the fees for all generation prior to the purchase dates of those plants. The fees payable to the DOE may be adjusted in the future to assure full recovery.  Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense.  Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants.  Entergy’s total spent fuel fees to date, including the one-time fee liability of Entergy Arkansas, have surpassed $1.6 billion (exclusive of amounts relating to Entergy plants that were paid or are owed by prior owners of those plants).

The permanent spent fuel repository in the U.S. has been legislated to be Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing (the DOE filed the license application in June 2008) and, after the license is granted by the NRC, proceed with the repository construction and commencement of receipt of spent fuel. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. The DOE continues to delay meeting its obligation. Specific steps were taken to discontinue the Yucca Mountain project, including a motion to the NRC to withdraw the license application with prejudice and the establishment of a commission to develop recommendations for alternative spent fuel storage solutions. In August 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the NRC to continue with the Yucca Mountain license review, but only to the extent of funds previously appropriated by Congress for that purpose and not yet used. Although the NRC completed the safety evaluation report for the license review in 2015, the previously appropriated funds are not sufficient to complete the review, including required hearings. The government has taken no effective action to date related to the recommendations of the appointed spent fuel study commission. Accordingly, large uncertainty remains regarding the time frame under
269

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

which the DOE will begin to accept spent fuel from Entergy’s facilities for storage or disposal. As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at Entergy’s nuclear sites.

Following the defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014.

As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. These subsidiaries have been, and continue to be, involved in litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2018, 2019, and 2020 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries’ litigation with the DOE. Through 2020, Entergy’s subsidiaries won and collected on judgments against the government totaling approximately $800 million.

Pending DOE acceptance and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the owners of nuclear plants are providing their own spent fuel storage.  Storage capability additions using dry casks began operations at Palisades in 1993, at ANO in 1996, at River Bend in 2005, at Grand Gulf in 2006, at Indian Point in 2008, and at Waterford 3 in 2011.  These facilities will be expanded as needed.

Nuclear Plant Decommissioning

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for ANO, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively.  In addition, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for the portion of River Bend subject to retail rate regulation. The collections are deposited in trust funds that can only be used in accordance with NRC and other applicable regulatory requirements.  Entergy periodically reviews and updates the estimated decommissioning costs to reflect inflation and changes in regulatory requirements and technology, and then makes applications to the regulatory authorities to reflect, in rates, the changes in projected decommissioning costs.

In December 2018 the APSC ordered collections in rates for decommissioning ANO 2 and found that ANO 1’s decommissioning was adequately funded without additional collections. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a revised decommissioning cost recovery tariff for ANO indicating that both ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning trusts were adequately funded without further collections, and in December 2020, the APSC ordered zero collections for ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning.

In July 2010 the LPSC approved increased decommissioning collections for Waterford 3 and the Louisiana regulated share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls. This LPSC decision contemplated that the level of decommissioning collections could be revisited should the NRC grant license extensions for both Waterford 3 and River Bend. In July 2019, following the NRC approval of license extensions for Waterford 3 and River Bend, Entergy Louisiana made a filing with the LPSC seeking to adjust decommissioning and depreciation rates for those plants, including one proposed scenario that would adjust Louisiana-jurisdictional decommissioning collections to zero for both plants (including an offsetting increase in depreciation rates). Because of the ongoing public health emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying economic uncertainty, Entergy Louisiana determined that the relief sought in the filing was no longer appropriate, and in November 2020, filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the proceeding. Following that filing, in a December 2020 order, the LPSC dismissed the proceeding without prejudice.
270

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


In December 2010 the PUCT approved increased decommissioning collections for the Texas share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls.  In December 2018 the PUCT approved a settlement that eliminated River Bend decommissioning collections for the Texas jurisdictional share of the plant based on a determination by Entergy Texas that the existing decommissioning fund was adequate following license renewal.

In September 2016 the NRC issued a 20-year operating license renewal for Grand Gulf. In a 2017 filing at the FERC, System Energy stated that with the renewed operating license, Grand Gulf’s decommissioning trust was sufficiently funded, and proposed, among other things, to cease decommissioning collections for Grand Gulf effective October 1, 2017. The FERC accepted a settlement including the proposed decommissioning revenue requirement by letter order in August 2018.

Entergy currently believes its decommissioning funding will be sufficient for its nuclear plants subject to retail rate regulation, although decommissioning cost inflation and trust fund performance will ultimately determine the adequacy of the funding amounts.

In January 2019, Entergy sold 100% of the membership interest in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to a subsidiary of NorthStar. As a result of the sale, NorthStar assumed ownership of Vermont Yankee and its decommissioning and site restoration trusts, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of Vermont Yankee decommissioning costs and see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the NorthStar transaction.

In August 2019, Entergy sold 100% of the equity interests in Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, LLC to a subsidiary of Holtec International. As a result of the sale, Holtec assumed ownership of Pilgrim and its decommissioning trust, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the sale.

For the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants purchased in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust funds and the decommissioning liabilities with the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume each of the decommissioning liabilities provided that it assigns the corresponding decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to the Entergy subsidiaries.  In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy, which was completed in January 2017. In March 2017, Entergy sold the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon, and as part of the transaction, the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund, along with the decommissioning obligation for that plant, was transferred to Exelon. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the transaction. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the FitzPatrick sale.

In March 2020 filings with the NRC were made reporting on decommissioning funding for all of Entergy subsidiaries’ nuclear plants.  Those reports showed that decommissioning funding for each of the nuclear plants met the NRC’s financial assurance requirements.

Additional information with respect to Entergy’s decommissioning costs and decommissioning trust funds is found in Note 9 and Note 16 to the financial statements.

Price-Anderson Act

The Price-Anderson Act requires that reactor licensees purchase and maintain the maximum amount of nuclear liability insurance available and participate in an industry assessment program called Secondary Financial Protection in order to protect the public in the event of a nuclear power plant accident.  The costs of this insurance
271

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

are borne by the nuclear power industry.  Congress amended and renewed the Price-Anderson Act in 2005 for a term through 2025.  The Price-Anderson Act limits the contingent liability for a single nuclear incident to a maximum assessment of approximately $137.6 million per reactor (with 97 nuclear industry reactors currently participating).  In the case of a nuclear event in which Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, or an Entergy Wholesale Commodities company is liable, protection is afforded through a combination of private insurance and the Secondary Financial Protection program. In addition to this, insurance for property damage, costs of replacement power, and other risks relating to nuclear generating units is also purchased.  The Price-Anderson Act and insurance applicable to the nuclear programs of Entergy are discussed in more detail in Note 8 to the financial statements.

NRC Reactor Oversight Process

The NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process is a program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response. The NRC evaluates plant performance by analyzing two distinct inputs: inspection findings resulting from the NRC’s inspection program and performance indicators reported by the licensee. The evaluations result in the placement of each plant in one of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix columns: “licensee response column,” or Column 1, “regulatory response column,” or Column 2, “degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 3, and “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4. Plants in Column 1 are subject to normal NRC inspection activities. Plants in Column 2, Column 3, or Column 4 are subject to progressively increasing levels of inspection by the NRC with, in general, progressively increasing levels of associated costs. The nuclear generating plants owned and operated by Entergy’s Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses are currently in Column 1, except for Grand Gulf, which is currently in Column 2.

In November 2020 the NRC placed Grand Gulf in Column 2 based on the incidence of three unplanned plant scrams during the second and third quarters of 2020.Two of the scram events related to new turbine control system components that failed, and a third related to a feedwater valve positioner that failed, all of which had been replaced in a refueling outage that ended in May 2020. The NRC plans to conduct a supplemental inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 2. As a consequence of two additional Grand Gulf scrams during the fourth quarter 2020, System Energy expects Grand Gulf to be placed into NRC Column 3 based on plant performance indicators for the four quarters ended December 31, 2020. This will involve an additional supplemental NRC inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 3.

Environmental Regulation

Entergy’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.  Management believes that Entergy’s businesses are in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted below.  Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance requirements and costs cannot be precisely estimated.  Except to the extent discussed below, at this time compliance with federal, state, and local provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise protecting the environment, is incorporated into the routine cost structure of Entergy’s businesses and is not expected to have a material effect on their competitive position, results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

272

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Clean Air Act and Subsequent Amendments

The Clean Air Act and its amendments establish several programs that currently or in the future may affect Entergy’s fossil-fueled generation facilities and, to a lesser extent, certain operations at nuclear and other facilities.  Individual states also operate similar independent state programs or delegated federal programs that may include requirements more stringent than federal regulatory requirements.  These programs include:

New source review and preconstruction permits for new sources of criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and significant modifications to existing facilities;
Acid rain program for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx);
Nonattainment area programs for control of criteria air pollutants, which could include fee assessments for air pollutant emission sources under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act if attainment is not reached in a timely manner;
Hazardous air pollutant emissions reduction programs;
Interstate Air Transport;
Operating permit programs and enforcement of these and other Clean Air Act programs;
Regional Haze programs; and
New and existing source standards for greenhouse gas and other air emissions.

New Source Review (NSR)

Preconstruction permits are required for new facilities and for existing facilities that undergo a modification that results in a significant net emissions increase and is not classified as routine repair, maintenance, or replacement.  Units that undergo certain non-routine modifications must obtain a permit modification and may be required to install additional air pollution control technologies. In December 2020 the EPA amended the NSR regulations to clarify when a physical change or change in the method of operation will constitute such a modification. Entergy has an established process for identifying modifications requiring additional permitting approval and is monitoring the regulations and associated guidance provided by the states and the federal government with regard to the determination of routine repair, maintenance, and replacement.  Several years ago, however, the EPA implemented an enforcement initiative, aimed primarily at coal plants, to identify modifications that it does not consider routine for which the unit did not obtain a modified permit.  Various courts and the EPA have been inconsistent in their judgments regarding modifications that are considered routine and on other legal issues that affect this program.

In February 2011, Entergy received a request from the EPA for several categories of information concerning capital and maintenance projects at the White Bluff and Independence facilities, both located in Arkansas, in order to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act, including NSR requirements and air permits issued by the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). In August 2011, Entergy’s Nelson facility, located in Louisiana, received a similar request for information from the EPA. In September 2015 an additional request for similar information was received for the White Bluff facility. Entergy responded to all requests. None of these EPA requests for information alleged that the facilities were in violation of law.

In January and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Independence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. In November 2018, following extensive negotiations, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Power entered a proposed settlement resolving those claims as well as other issues facing Entergy Arkansas’s fossil generation plants. The settlement, which formally resolves a complaint filed by the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In October 2019 the District Court requested supplemental briefing on several issues to be resolved prior to addressing the motion to approve the
273

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

settlement; that briefing was completed in May 2020. For further information about the settlement, see “Regional Haze” discussed below.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide, and requires periodic review of those standards. When an area fails to meet an ambient standard, it is considered to be in nonattainment and is classified as “marginal,” “moderate,” “serious,” or “severe.” When an area fails to meet the ambient air standard, the EPA requires state regulatory authorities to prepare state implementation plans meant to cause progress toward bringing the area into attainment with applicable standards.

Ozone Nonattainment

Entergy Texas operates two fossil-fueled generating facilities (Lewis Creek and Montgomery County Power Station) in a geographic area that is not in attainment with the applicable NAAQS for ozone.  The ozone nonattainment area that affects Entergy Texas is the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area.  Both Lewis Creek and the Montgomery County Power Station hold all necessary permits for construction and operation and comply with applicable air quality program regulations. Measures enacted to return the area to ozone attainment could make these program regulations more stringent. Entergy will continue to work with state environmental agencies on appropriate methods for assessing attainment and nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS.

Potential SO2Nonattainment

The EPA issued a final rule in June 2010 adopting an SO2 1-hour national ambient air quality standard of 75 parts per billion.  In Entergy’s utility service territory, only St. Bernard Parish and Evangeline Parish in Louisiana are designated as nonattainment. In August 2017 the EPA issued a letter indicating that East Baton Rouge and St. Charles parishes would be designated by December 31, 2020, as monitors were installed to determine compliance. In December 2020 the EPA designated East Baton Rouge, St. Charles, St. James, and West Baton Rouge parishes in Louisiana as attainment/unclassifiable, and, in Texas, Jefferson County as attainment/unclassifiable and Orange County as unclassifiable. Challenges to these final designations must be filed within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register. Entergy continues to monitor this situation.

Hazardous Air Pollutants

The EPA released the final Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule in December 2011, which had a compliance date, with a widely granted one-year extension, of April 2016. The required controls have been installed and are operational at all affected Entergy units. In May 2020 the EPA finalized a rule that finds that it is not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants from electric steam generating units under the provisions of section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act. This is a reversal of the EPA’s previous finding requiring such regulation. The final appropriate and necessary finding does not revise the underlying MATS rule. Several lawsuits have been filed challenging the appropriate and necessary finding. Entergy will continue to monitor this situation.

Cross-State Air Pollution

In March 2005 the EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was intended to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from electric generation plants in order to improve air quality in twenty-nine eastern states. The rule required a combination of capital investment to install pollution control equipment and increased operating costs through the purchase of emission allowances. Entergy began implementation in 2007, including installation of controls at several facilities and the development of an emission allowance procurement strategy.

274

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Based on several court challenges, CAIR and its subsequent versions, now known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), have been remanded to and modified by the EPA on multiple occasions. In September 2016 the EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Starting in 2017 the final rule requires reductions in summer nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Several states, including Arkansas and Texas, filed a challenge to the Update Rule. In September 2019 the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA’s underlying approach to the Update Rule, but determined that it was inconsistent with the Clean Air Act because it failed to include deadlines consistent with downwind states’ deadlines for attainment. The court remanded the rule to the EPA for further consideration, but did not vacate so the rule remains in effect pending the EPA’s further review. In October 2020 the EPA issued its proposal intended to address the D.C. Circuit’s remand. The draft rule proposes to finalize interstate transport obligations for 21 states. For nine states, including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas, the EPA proposes that additional emission reductions are not necessary. For 12 states, however, including Louisiana, the EPA proposes additional emission reductions through proposed reductions in the number of NOx emission allowances allocated to each state. Entergy, through its various trade associations, filed comments on the proposal and will continue to monitor the rulemaking and its potential impact on its facilities in Louisiana. If the October 2020 proposal is finalized, ozone season NOx emissions may become more expensive in Louisiana.

Regional Haze

In June 2005 the EPA issued its final Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) regulations that potentially could result in a requirement to install SO2 and NOx pollution control technology as Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART) to continue operating certain of Entergy’s fossil generation units.  The rule leaves certain CAVR determinations to the states.

In Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) prepared a state implementation plan (SIP) for Arkansas facilities to implement its obligations under the CAVR.   In April 2012 the EPA finalized a decision addressing the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, in which it disapproved a large portion of the Arkansas plan, including the emission limits for NOx and SO2 at White Bluff.  In April 2015 the EPA published a proposed federal implementation plan (FIP) for Arkansas, taking comment on requiring installation of scrubbers and low NOx burners to continue operating both units at the White Bluff plant and both units at the Independence plant and NOx controls to continue operating the Lake Catherine plant. Entergy filed comments by the deadline in August 2015. Among other comments, including opposition to the EPA’s proposed controls on the Independence units, Entergy proposed to meet more stringent SO2 and NOx limits at both White Bluff and Independence within three years of the effective date of the final FIP and to cease the use of coal at the White Bluff units at a later date.

In September 2016 the EPA published the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP. In most respects, the EPA finalized its original proposal but shortened the time for compliance for installation of the NOx controls. The FIP required an emission limitation consistent with SO2 scrubbers at both White Bluff and Independence by October 2021 and NOx controls by April 2018. The EPA declined to adopt Entergy’s proposals related to ceasing coal use as an alternative to SO2 scrubbers for White Bluff SO2 BART. In November 2016, Entergy and other interested parties, including the State of Arkansas, filed petitions for administrative reconsideration and stay at the EPA as well as petitions for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit granted the stay pending settlement discussions and pending the State’s development of a SIP that, if approved by the EPA, would replace the FIP. The state had proposed its replacement SIP in two parts: Part I considers NOx requirements, and Part II considers SO2 requirements. The EPA approved the Part I NOx SIP in January 2018. The Part I SIP requires that Entergy address NOx impacts on visibility via compliance with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ozone-season emission trading program. Arkansas has finalized a Part II SIP which has been approved by the EPA but is currently pending a state court appeal. That appeal has been stayed pending the outcome of a federal court case, which may resolve many of the issues on appeal. The final Part II SIP requires that Entergy achieve SO2 emission reductions via the use of low-sulfur coal at both White Bluff and Independence within three years. The
275

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Part II SIP also requires that Entergy cease to use coal at White Bluff by December 31, 2028 and notes the current planning assumption that Entergy’s Independence units will cease to use coal by December 31, 2030.

In January and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Independence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. In November 2018, following extensive negotiations, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Power entered a proposed settlement resolving those claims and reducing the risk that Entergy Arkansas, as operator of Independence and White Bluff, might be compelled under the Clean Air Act’s regional haze program to install costly emissions control technologies. Consistent with the terms of the settlement and in many cases also the Part II SIP, Entergy Arkansas, along with co-owners, will begin using only low-sulfur coal at Independence and White Bluff by mid-2021; cease to use coal at White Bluff and Independence by the end of 2028 and 2030, respectively; cease operation of the remaining gas unit at Lake Catherine by the end of 2027; reserve the option to develop new generating sources at each plant site; and commit to install or propose to regulators at least 800 MWs of renewable generation by the end of 2027, with at least half installed or proposed by the end of 2022 (which includes two existing Entergy Arkansas projects) and with all qualifying co-owner projects counting toward satisfaction of the obligation. Under the settlement, the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association also waive certain potential existing claims under federal and state environmental law with respect to specified generating plants. The settlement, which formally resolves a complaint filed by the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The EPA, which is allowed to comment on such a settlement agreement, has stated that it has no objections to the settlement. In November 2020 the court denied motions by the Arkansas Attorney General and the Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition to intervene and to stay the proceedings. The proposed intervenors did not appeal the ruling. Still pending before the court is a motion by the plaintiffs to approve the settlement, in support of which Entergy made a filing. The Arkansas Attorney General also filed an application before the APSC in December 2018 seeking an investigation into the effects of the settlement. The Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition filed to support the Arkansas Attorney General’s application, and Entergy Arkansas filed a motion to dismiss it. The application remains pending before the APSC. In October 2019 the District Court requested supplemental briefing on several issues prior to addressing the motion to approve the settlement; that briefing concluded in May 2020.

In Louisiana, Entergy has worked with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the EPA to revise the Louisiana SIP for regional haze, which had been disapproved in part in 2012. The LDEQ submitted a revised SIP in February 2017. In May 2017 the EPA proposed to approve a majority of the revisions. In September 2017 the EPA issued a proposed SIP approval for the Nelson plant, requiring an emission limitation consistent with the use of low-sulfur coal, with a compliance date of January 22, 2021. The EPA issued final approval in December 2017. The EPA approval was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In October 2019 the Fifth Circuit affirmed the EPA’s SIP approval. A petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs was denied by the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiffs did not petition for further review by the Supreme Court.

The second planning period (2018-2028) for the regional haze program requires states to examine sources for impacts on visibility and to prepare SIPs by 2021. Entergy received information collection requests from Arkansas and Louisiana requesting an evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of various NOx and SO2 control technologies for Independence, Nelson 6, and Ninemile. Responses to the information requests have been submitted to the respective state agencies.

New and Existing Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In July 2019 the EPA released the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE), which applies only to existing coal-fired electric generating units. The ACE determines that heat rate improvements are the best system of emission reductions and lists six candidate technologies for consideration by states at each coal unit. The rule and associated rulemakings by the EPA replace the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which established
276

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

national emissions performance rates for existing fossil-fuel fired steam electric generating units and combustion turbines. The ACE rule provides states discretion in determining how the best system for emission reductions applies to individual units, including through the consideration of technical feasibility and the remaining useful life of the facility. The ADEQ and the LDEQ have issued information collection requests to Entergy facilities to help the states collect the information needed to determine the best system of emission reductions for each facility. Entergy responded to the requests and will continue to monitor litigation challenging the rule. In January 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated ACE. The court held that ACE relied on an incorrect interpretation of the Clean Air Act that the statute expressly forecloses emission reduction approaches, such as emissions trading and generating shifting, that cannot be applied at and to the individual source. The court remanded ACE to the EPA for further consideration and also vacated the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The vacatur will not be effective until the court issues its mandate which is being held until after disposition of any petitions for rehearing. Entergy is currently reviewing the court’s opinion.

In 2018 the EPA proposed a revision to the new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions that primarily impacts new coal units and, therefore, should not impact Entergy. In January 2021 the EPA finalized a pollutant-specific contribution finding for greenhouse gas emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed electric generating units. The rule establishes a three percent threshold for determining when a pollutant significantly contributes to air pollution and reaffirms the EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act Section 111(b) requires the EPA to make pollutant-specific significant contribution findings before promulgation of a new source performance standard. The EPA did not, however, finalize the new source performance standard on greenhouse gas emissions and intends to address the 2018 proposal in a future action.

Potential Legislative, Regulatory, and Judicial Developments

In addition to the specific instances described above, there are a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives concerning air emissions, as well as other media, that are under consideration at the federal, state, and local level.  Because of the nature of Entergy’s business, the imposition of any of these initiatives could affect Entergy’s operations.  Entergy continues to monitor these initiatives and activities in order to analyze their potential operational and cost implications.  These initiatives include:

designation by the EPA and state environmental agencies of areas that are not in attainment with national ambient air quality standards;
introduction of bills in Congress and development of regulations by the EPA proposing further limits on NOx, SO2, mercury, and carbon dioxide and other air emissions.  New legislation or regulations applicable to stationary sources could take the form of market-based cap-and-trade programs, direct requirements for the installation of air emission controls onto air emission sources, or other or combined regulatory programs;
efforts in Congress or at the EPA to establish a federal carbon dioxide emission tax, control structure, or unit performance standards;
revisions to the estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon and its use for regulatory impact analysis of federal laws and regulations;
implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative by several states in the northeastern United States and similar actions in other regions of the United States;
efforts on the local, state, and federal level to codify renewable portfolio standards, clean energy standards, or a similar mechanism requiring utilities to produce or purchase a certain percentage of their power from defined renewable energy sources or energy sources with lower emissions;
efforts to develop more stringent state water quality standards, effluent limitations for Entergy’s industry sector, stormwater runoff control regulations, and cooling water intake structure requirements;
efforts to restrict the previously-approved continued use of oil-filled equipment containing certain levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
efforts by certain external groups to encourage reporting and disclosure of environmental, social, and governance risk;
277

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

the listing of additional species as threatened or endangered, the protection of critical habitat for these species, and developments in the legal protection of eagles and migratory birds;
the regulation of the management, disposal, and beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals; and
the regulation of the management and disposal and recycling of equipment associated with renewable and clean energy sources such as used solar panels, wind turbine blades, hydrogen usage, or battery storage.

Entergy continues to support national legislation that would increase planning certainty for electric utilities while addressing carbon dioxide emissions in an economy-wide, responsible, and flexible manner.  By virtue of its proportionally large investment in low-emitting generation technologies, Entergy has a low overall carbon dioxide emission “intensity,” or rate of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt-hour of electricity generated.  In anticipation of the imposition of carbon dioxide emission limits on the electric industry, Entergy initiated actions designed to reduce its exposure to potential new governmental requirements related to carbon dioxide emissions.  These voluntary actions included a formal program to stabilize owned power plant carbon dioxide emissions at 2000 levels through 2005, and Entergy succeeded in reducing emissions below 2000 levels. In 2006, Entergy started including emissions from controllable power purchases in addition to its ownership share of generation and established a second formal voluntary program to stabilize power plant carbon dioxide emissions and emissions from controllable power purchases, cumulatively over the period, at 20% below 2000 levels through 2010.  In 2011, Entergy extended this commitment through 2020.  In 2020, Entergy succeeded in achieving its initial climate commitment to reduce carbon dioxide cumulative emissions by 20% from 2000 levels. Total carbon dioxide emissions representing Entergy’s ownership share of power plants and controllable power purchases in the United States were approximately 39.1 million tons in 2020 and 40.7 million tons in 2019. Since its original commitment in 2001, Entergy’s cumulative emissions are approximately 7.6% below its 2020 goal.

Entergy voluntarily conducted a climate scenario analysis and published a comprehensive report in March 2019. The report follows the framework and recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Disclosures, describing climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Scenario analyses resulted in Entergy developing and publishing a new goal of reducing the Utility’s emission rate by 50 percent from 2000 levels by 2030. In September 2020, Entergy committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, while continuing its commitment to grid reliability and affordability for customers. In December 2020, Entergy published a report regarding this long-term commitment that describes its approach and technology point-of-view. Technology research and development, innovation, and advancement are critical to Entergy’s ability to meet this climate commitment.

Entergy participates in the M.J. Bradley & Associates’ Annual Benchmarking Air Emissions Report, an annual analysis of the 100 largest U.S. electric power producers. The report is available on the M.J. Bradley website. Entergy’s annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory is also third-party verified, and that certification is made available on the American Carbon Registry website. Entergy participates annually in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and in 2020 was listed on the North American Index. Entergy has been listed on the World or North American Index, or both, for nineteen consecutive years. Entergy also participated in the 2020 CDP and CDP Water evaluations, receiving a ‘B’ for both responses.

Clean Water Act

The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act) provide the statutory basis for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program, section 402, and the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States.  The Clean Water Act requires virtually all discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to be permitted.  Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act regulates cooling water intake structures, section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a water quality certification from the state in support of certain federal actions and approvals, and section 404 regulates the dredge and fill of waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands.

278

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines

The 2015 Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) rule required, among other things, that there be no discharge of bottom ash transport water. In October 2020 the EPA issued its final rule revision on bottom ash transport water allowing the discharge of up to 10% system volume for certain purge waters, including storm events and non-routine operations. The final rule requires compliance as soon as possible beginning October 31, 2021, but no later than December 31, 2025. Several challenges to the final rule have been filed. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously vacated and remanded the provisions of the rule related to legacy wastewater and leachate, which the EPA plans to address in a separate rulemaking. Despite the final rule and pending challenges, Entergy is implementing projects at its White Bluff and Independence plants to convert to zero-discharge systems to comply with the ELG rule and the coal combustion residuals restrictions on impoundments. Additionally, the Nelson Unit 6 facility is implementing operational and maintenance measures to minimize the potential for discharge of bottom ash transport water from the existing bottom ash handling system at the site, and is reviewing the effectiveness of these changes for compliance with the requirements of the October 2020 final rule.

Federal Jurisdiction of Waters of the United States

In February 2019 the EPA published its proposed revised definition of Waters of the United States, which proposes to narrow the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, as compared to a 2015 definition which had been stayed by several federal courts. The final rule was released in January 2020 and effective in June 2020. In October 2019 the EPA repealed the 2015 rule and re-codified the pre-existing regulations. That rule was effective late December 2019. Numerous challenges have been filed against both rules.

Groundwater at Certain Nuclear Sites

The NRC requires nuclear power plants to monitor and report regularly the presence of radioactive material in the environment.  Entergy joined other nuclear utilities and the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2006 to develop a voluntary groundwater monitoring and protection program.  This initiative began after detection of very low levels of radioactive material, primarily tritium, in groundwater at several plants in the United States.  Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that occurs naturally and is also a byproduct of nuclear plant operations.  In addition to tritium, other radionuclides have been found in site groundwater at nuclear plants.

As part of the groundwater monitoring and protection program, Entergy has: (1) performed reviews of plant groundwater characteristics (hydrology) and historical records of past events on site that may have potentially impacted groundwater; (2) implemented fleet procedures on how to handle events that could impact groundwater; and (3) installed groundwater monitoring wells and began periodic sampling.  The program also includes protocols for notifying local officials if contamination is found.  To date, radionuclides such as tritium have been detected at Arkansas Nuclear One, Indian Point, Palisades, Grand Gulf, and River Bend.  Each of these sites has installed groundwater monitoring wells and implemented a program for testing groundwater at the sites for the presence of tritium and other radionuclides.  Based on current information, the concentrations and locations of radionuclides detected at these plants pose no threat to public health or safety, but each site continues to evaluate the results from its groundwater monitoring program.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), authorizes the EPA to mandate clean-up by, or to collect reimbursement of clean-up costs from, owners or operators of sites at which hazardous substances may be or have been released.  Certain private parties also may use CERCLA to recover response costs.  Parties that transported hazardous substances to these sites or arranged for the disposal of the substances are also deemed liable by CERCLA.  CERCLA has been interpreted to impose strict, joint, and several liability on responsible parties.  Many states have adopted programs similar to CERCLA.  Entergy subsidiaries in the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses have sent waste materials to various
279

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

disposal sites over the years, and releases have occurred at Entergy facilities including nuclear facilities that have been or will be sold to decommissioning companies.  In addition, environmental laws now regulate certain of Entergy’s operating procedures and maintenance practices that historically were not subject to regulation.  Some disposal sites used by Entergy subsidiaries have been the subject of governmental action under CERCLA or similar state programs, resulting in site clean-up activities.  Entergy subsidiaries have participated to various degrees in accordance with their respective potential liabilities in such site clean-ups and have developed experience with clean-up costs.  The affected Entergy subsidiaries have established provisions for the liabilities for such environmental clean-up and restoration activities.  Details of potentially material CERCLA and similar state program liabilities are discussed in the “Other Environmental Matters” section below.

Coal Combustion Residuals

In June 2010 the EPA issued a proposed rule on coal combustion residuals (CCRs) that contained two primary regulatory options: (1) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or received (including stored) in surface impoundments as so-called “special wastes” under the hazardous waste program of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C; or (2) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments as non-hazardous wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA.  Under both options, CCRs that are beneficially reused in certain processes would remain excluded from hazardous waste regulation. In April 2015 the EPA published the final CCR rule with the material being regulated under the second scenario presented above - as non-hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA Subtitle D.

The final regulations create new compliance requirements including modified storage, new notification and reporting practices, product disposal considerations, and CCR unit closure criteria.  Entergy believes that on-site disposal options will be available at its facilities, to the extent needed for CCR that cannot be transferred for beneficial reuse. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy has recorded asset retirement obligations related to CCR management of $20.1 million.

In December 2016 the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) was signed into law, which authorizes states to regulate coal ash rather than leaving primary enforcement to citizen suit actions. States may submit to the EPA proposals for a permit program.

Pursuant to the EPA Rule, Entergy operates groundwater monitoring systems surrounding its coal combustion residual landfills located at White Bluff, Independence, and Nelson. Monitoring to date has detected concentrations of certain listed constituents in the area, but has not indicated that these constituents originated at the active landfill cells. Reporting has occurred as required, and detection monitoring will continue as the rule requires. In late-2017, Entergy determined that certain in-ground wastewater treatment system recycle ponds at its White Bluff and Independence facilities require management under the new EPA regulations. Consequently, in order to move away from using the recycle ponds, White Bluff and Independence each have installed a new permanent bottom ash handling system that does not fall under the CCR rule. As of November 2020, both sites are operating the new system and no longer are sending waste to the recycle ponds. Each site has commenced closure of one of its two recycle ponds, with the remaining pond being held in reserve during initial operation of the new bottom ash handling system. Closure of the remaining recycle pond at each site will commence as soon as possible, but no later than April 11, 2021, which is the deadline under the finalized CCR rule to commence closure of any unlined recycle ponds. Any potential requirements for corrective action or operational changes under the new CCR rule continue to be assessed. Notably, ongoing litigation has resulted in the EPA’s continuing review of the rule. Consequently, the nature and cost of additional corrective action requirements may depend, in part, on the outcome of the EPA’s review.

280

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Other Environmental Matters

Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas

Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, currently is involved in the second phase of the remedial investigation of the Lake Charles Service Center site, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  A manufactured gas plant (MGP) is believed to have operated at this site from approximately 1916 to 1931.  Coal tar, a by-product of the distillation process employed at MGPs, apparently was routed to a portion of the property for disposal.  The same area also has been used as a landfill.  In 1999, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. signed a second administrative consent order with the EPA to perform a removal action at the site.  Removal actions addressed contaminated source material, soil, and sediment and included capping certain soil on and off-site. In 2002 approximately 7,400 tons of contaminated soil and debris were excavated and disposed of from an area within the service center.  In 2003 a cap was constructed over the remedial area to prevent the migration of contamination to the surface.  In August 2005 an administrative order was issued by the EPA requiring that a 10-year groundwater study be conducted at this site.  The groundwater monitoring study commenced in January 2006.  The EPA released the second Five Year Review in 2015. In that review, the EPA indicated that the remediation technique was insufficient and that Entergy would need to utilize other remediation technologies on the site. In July 2015, Entergy submitted a Focused Feasibility Study to the EPA outlining the potential remedies and suggesting installation of the new remedial method, a waterloo barrier. The estimated cost for this remedy is approximately $2 million, to be allocated between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas.  In early 2017 the EPA indicated that the waterloo barrier may not be necessary and requested revisions to the Focused Feasibility Study. The EPA released the third Five Year Review in late-2019 confirming that a new remedial method is not necessary but requiring continuation of the current groundwater monitoring. The site’s remedy includes monitored natural attenuation of groundwater, and institutional controls to restrict groundwater and land use. The EPA has determined that no additional actions are needed for the remedy to be protective over the long-term, and the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) notified Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas that the TCEQ believes those entities are potentially responsible parties (PRPs) concerning contamination existing at the San Angelo Electric Service Company (SESCO) facility in San Angelo, Texas.  The facility operated as a transformer repair and scrapping facility from the 1930s until 2003.  Both soil and groundwater contamination existed at the site.  Entergy subsidiaries sent transformers to this facility.  Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy Texas responded to an information request from the TCEQ.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas joined a group of PRPs responding to site conditions in cooperation with the State of Texas, creating cost allocation models based on review of SESCO documents and employee interviews, and investigating contribution actions against other PRPs.  Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas have agreed to contribute to the remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at the site in a measure proportionate to those companies’ involvement at the site.  Current estimates, although variable depending on ultimate remediation design and performance, indicate that Entergy’s total share of remediation costs likely will be approximately $1.5 million to $2 million.  Groundwater monitoring wells at the site were plugged and abandoned in December 2019 following receipt of a certificate of completion issued by the TCEQ. Site decommissioning activities are complete and final disposition of the property will be determined at a later time.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Texas

The EPA notified Entergy that the EPA believes Entergy is a PRP concerning PCB contamination at the F.J. Doyle Salvage facility in Leonard, Texas. The facility operated as a scrap salvage business during the 1970s to the 1990s. In May 2018 the EPA investigated the site surface and sub-surface soils and, in November 2018 the EPA conducted a removal action, including disposal of PCB contaminated soils. Entergy responded to the EPA’s information requests in May and July 2019. In November 2020 the EPA sent Entergy and other PRPs a demand
281

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

letter seeking reimbursement for response costs totaling $4 million expended at the site. The demand letter is being evaluated and liability and PRP allocation of response costs are yet to be determined.

Entergy Texas

In December 2016 a transformer inside the Hartburg, Texas Substation had an internal fault resulting in a release of approximately 15,000 gallons of non-PCB mineral oil. Cleanup ensued immediately; however, rain caused much of the oil to spread across the substation yard and into a nearby wetland. The TCEQ and the National Response Center were immediately notified, and the TCEQ responded to the site approximately two hours after the cleanup was initiated. The remediation liability is estimated at $2.2 million; however, this number could fluctuate depending on the remediation extent and wetland mitigation requirements. In July 2017, Entergy entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program with the TCEQ. In November 2017, additional soil sampling was completed in the wetland area and, in February 2018, a site summary report of findings was submitted to the TCEQ. The TCEQ responded in June 2018 and requested an ecological exclusion criteria checklist/Tier II screening-level ecological risk assessment, and additional site assessment, additional soil samples, groundwater samples, and some additional diagrams and maps. In October 2018, Entergy submitted the requested information to the TCEQ. In January 2019 the TCEQ responded with another request for information. In March 2019, Entergy submitted the requested information to the TCEQ. In August 2019 the TCEQ responded with a request for additional information including an Affected Property Assessment Report (APAR) and water well survey. The TCEQ has agreed that the necessity of the water well survey is dependent on the results of the groundwater resampling that will occur. Groundwater sampling was completed in December 2019 and results were submitted to the TCEQ for review. Based on the groundwater sampling results, the TCEQ confirmed in February 2020 that a water well survey is not necessary and requested the APAR and an Ecological Risk Assessment by August 2020. Due to COVID-19 delays, the TCEQ extended the APAR and Ecological Risk Assessment submittal dates to December 2020, which Entergy timely met.

Litigation

Entergy uses legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against it, but certain states in which Entergy operates have proven to be unusually litigious environments.  Judges and juries in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases.  The litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk to Entergy.

Asbestos Litigation(Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of this litigation.

Employment and Labor-related Proceedings (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of these proceedings.

282

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Human Capital

Employees

Employees are an integral part of Entergy’s commitment to serving customers.  As of December 31, 2020, Entergy subsidiaries employed 13,400 people.

Utility:
Entergy Arkansas1,244 
Entergy Louisiana1,654 
Entergy Mississippi750 
Entergy New Orleans303 
Entergy Texas658 
System Energy— 
Entergy Operations3,529 
Entergy Services3,859 
Entergy Nuclear Operations1,356 
Other subsidiaries47 
Total Entergy13,400 

Approximately 3,900 employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Utility Workers Union of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Government Security Officers of America, and the International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America.

Below is the breakdown of Entergy’s employees by gender and race/ethnicity:

Gender (%)20202019
Female2120
Male7980
100100


Race/Ethnicity (%)20202019
White7879
Black/African American1515
Hispanic/Latino32
Asian22
Other22
100100

Entergy’s Approach to Human Resources

Entergy’s people and culture enable its success; that is why acquiring, retaining, and developing talent are important components of Entergy’s human resources strategy. Entergy focuses on an approach that includes, among other things, governance and oversight; safety; organizational health, including diversity, inclusion and belonging; and talent management.

283

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Governance and Oversight

Ensuring that workplace processes support the desired culture and strategy begins with the Board of Directors and the Office of the Chief Executive. The Personnel Committee establishes priorities and reviews performance on a range of topics. It oversees Entergy’s incentive plan design and administers its executive compensation plans to incentivize the behaviors and outcomes that support achievement of Entergy’s corporate objectives. Annually, it reviews executive performance, development and succession plans to align a high performing executive team with Entergy’s priorities. The Personnel Committee also oversees Entergy’s performance through regular briefings on a wide variety of human resources topics including Entergy’s safety culture and performance; organizational health; and diversity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives and performance.

Other committees of the Board oversee other key aspects of Entergy’s culture. For example, the Audit Committee reviews reports on ethics and compliance training and performance, as well as regular reports on calls made to Entergy’s ethics line and related investigations. To maximize the sharing of information and facilitate the participation of all Board members in these discussions, the Board schedules its regular committee meetings in a manner such that all directors can attend.

The Office of the Chief Executive, which includes the Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, ensures annual business plans are designed to support Entergy’s talent objectives, reviews workforce-related metrics, and regularly discusses the development, succession planning, and performance of their direct reports and other company officers.

Safety

Entergy’s safety objective is: Everyone Safe. All Day. Every Day. While the COVID-19 pandemic and historical hurricane season presented significant challenges, Entergy’s safety strategy and commitment to excellence showed results in 2020. Entergy employees achieved a total recordable incident rate of 0.40 in 2020 compared to 0.56 in 2019 and 0.48 in 2018. The recordable incident rate equals the number of recordable incidents per 100 full-time equivalents. Recordable incidents include fatalities, lost-time accidents, restricted-duty accidents, and medical attentions and is not inclusive of potential work-related COVID-19 cases. This marked improvement in total recordable incident rate placed Entergy in top-decile in safety performance when benchmarked amongst peers within the Edison Electric Institute.

Organizational Health, including Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging

Entergy believes that organizational health fosters an engaged and productive culture that positions Entergy to deliver sustainable value to its stakeholders. Entergy measures its progress through an organizational health survey coordinated by an external third party. Since initially administering the survey in 2014, Entergy improved from an initial score of 49 (fourth quartile) to a score in 2020 of 72 (near top quartile). In addition to significantly improved scores, initial employee participation of 66 percent in 2014 rose to and remains at 90 percent in 2018-2020.

Entergy believes that a culture focused on diversity, inclusion, and belonging drives foundational engagement. Entergy is committed to developing and retaining a workforce that reflects the rich diversity of the communities it serves. In 2019, Entergy embarked on a three-year phased approach to enhance inclusion for individuals and teams. Among other actions, the primary focus of its 2020 actions was taking a stand against social injustice, reinforcing expectations, training and leading by example, starting at the top of the organization and cascading through management ranks.

284

Part I Item 1
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Talent Management

Entergy’s focus on talent management is organized in three areas: developing and attracting a diverse pool of talent, equipping its leaders to develop the organization, and building premier utility capability through employee performance management and succession programs. Entergy believes that developing a diverse pool of local talent equipped with the skills needed, today and in the future, and reflecting the communities Entergy serves will give it a long-term competitive advantage. The focus of Entergy’s leadership development programs is to equip managers with the skills needed to effectively develop their teams and improve the leader-employee relationship. Entergy’s talent development infrastructure, which includes a combination of business function-specific and enterprise-wide learning and development programs, is designed to ensure Entergy has qualified staff with the skills, experiences, and behaviors needed to perform today and prepare for the future. Entergy strives to achieve its strategic priorities by aligning and enhancing team and individual performance with business objectives, effectively deploying talent through succession planning, and managing workforce transitions.

Availability of SEC filings and other information on Entergy’s website

Entergy electronically files reports with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxies, and amendments to such reports. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of the reports that Entergy files with the SEC can be obtained at the SEC’s website.

Entergy uses its website, http://www.entergy.com, as a routine channel for distribution of important information, including news releases, analyst presentations and financial information.  Filings made with the SEC are posted and available without charge on Entergy’s website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.  These filings include annual and quarterly reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q (including related filings in Inline XBRL format) and current reports on Form 8-K; proxy statements; and any amendments to those reports or statements.  All such postings and filings are available on Entergy’s Investor Relations website free of charge.  Entergy is providing the address to its internet site solely for the information of investors and does not intend the address to be an active link.  The contents of the website are not incorporated into this report.


285

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

RISK FACTORS

See “RISK FACTOR SUMMARY” in Part I Item 1 for a summary of Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ risk factors.

Investors should review carefully the following risk factors and the other information in this Form 10-K.  The risks that Entergy faces are not limited to those in this section.  There may be additional risks and uncertainties (either currently unknown or not currently believed to be material) that could adversely affect Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.  See “FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION.”

Utility Regulatory Risks

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and responsive measures taken on Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ business, results of operations, and financial condition are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

In December 2019 a novel strain of coronavirus was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan, China. Since then, COVID-19 has spread throughout most countries in the world, including the United States. Public health officials in the United States have both recommended and mandated wearing of masks, precautions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including prohibitions on congregating in heavily-populated areas, mandated closure or limitations on the functions of non-essential business, and shelter-in-place orders or similar measures, including throughout Entergy’s service areas. While some of these mitigation measures have been lifted, it is unclear how long certain forms of mitigation measures will remain in place, whether they will be reinstated in the future, and how they will ultimately impact the general economy, Entergy’s customers, and its operations.

Entergy and its Utility operating companies have experienced a decline in commercial and industrial sales and an increase in arrearages and bad debt expense due to non-payment by customers, and expect such reduced levels of sales and increased arrearages and bad debt expense to continue, the extent and duration of which management cannot predict. The Utility operating companies temporarily suspended disconnecting customers for non-payment of bills, and the suspension remains in place at Entergy Arkansas, has been re-instituted at Entergy New Orleans, and could be re-instituted at the other Utility operating companies should their regulators mandate. While they are working with regulators to ensure ultimate recovery for those and other COVID-19 related costs, the amount, method, and timing of such recovery is unknown. Entergy and its Registrant Subsidiaries also could experience, and in some cases have experienced, among other challenges, supply chain, vendor, and contractor disruptions; delays in completion of capital or other construction projects, maintenance, and other operations activities, including prolonged or delayed outages; delays in regulatory proceedings; workforce availability, health or safety issues; increased storm recovery costs; increased cybersecurity risks as a result of many employees telecommuting; increased late or uncollectible customer payments; volatility in the credit or capital markets (and any related increased cost of capital or any inability to access the capital markets or draw on available credit facilities); or other adverse impacts on their ability to execute on business strategies and initiatives.

A sustained or further economic decline could adversely impact Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity and cash flows, including through declining sales, reduced revenues, delays in receipts of customer payments, or increased bad debt expense. The Utility operating companies also may experience regulatory outcomes that require them to postpone planned investment and otherwise reduce costs due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their customers. In addition, if the COVID-19 pandemic continues to create disruptions or turmoil in the credit or financial markets, or adversely impacts Entergy’s credit metrics or ratings, such developments could adversely affect its ability to access capital on favorable terms and continue to meet its
286

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

liquidity needs, or cause a decrease in the value of its defined benefit pension trust funds, as well as its nuclear decommissioning trust funds, all of which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

Entergy cannot predict the extent or duration of the outbreak, the impact of new variants of COVID-19, the timing, availability, distribution or effectiveness of a vaccine, anti-viral or other treatments for COVID-19, governmental responsive measures, or the extent of the effects or ultimate impacts on the global, national or local economy, the capital markets, or its customers, suppliers, operations, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

The terms and conditions of service, including electric and gas rates, of the Utility operating companies and System Energy are determined through regulatory approval proceedings that can be lengthy and subject to appeal, potentially resulting in delays in effecting rate changes, lengthy litigation and uncertainty as to ultimate results.

The Utility operating companies are regulated on a cost-of-service and rate of return basis and are subject to statutes and regulatory commission rules and procedures. The rates that the Utility operating companies and System Energy charge reflect their capital expenditures, operations and maintenance costs, allowed rates of return, financing costs, and related costs of service.  These rates significantly influence the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy and each of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.  These rates are determined in regulatory proceedings and are subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment, including adjustment upon the initiative of a regulator or affected stakeholders.

In addition, regulators may initiate proceedings to investigate the prudence of costs in the Utility operating companies’ and System Energy’s base rates and examine, among other things, the reasonableness or prudence of the companies’ operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures (including storm costs and costs associated with capital projects), allowed rates of return and rate base, proposed resource acquisitions, and previously incurred capital expenditures that the operating companies seek to place in rates.  The regulators may disallow costs subject to their jurisdiction found not to have been prudently incurred or found not to have been incurred in compliance with applicable tariffs, creating some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs.  Regulatory proceedings relating to rates and other matters typically involve multiple parties seeking to limit or reduce rates.  Traditional base rate proceedings, as opposed to formula rate plans, generally have long timelines, are primarily based on historical costs, and may or may not be limited in scope or duration by statute. The length of these base rate proceedings can cause the Utility operating companies and System Energy to experience regulatory lag in recovering costs through rates, such that the Utility operating companies may not fully recover all costs during the rate effective period and the Utility operating companies may, therefore, earn less than their allowed returns.  Decisions are typically subject to appeal, potentially leading to additional uncertainty associated with rate case proceedings.

The Utility operating companies have large customer and stakeholder bases and, as a result, could be the subject of public criticism or adverse publicity focused on issues including the operation of their assets and infrastructure or the quality of their service. Criticism or adverse publicity of this nature could render legislatures and other governing bodies, public service commissions and other regulatory authorities, and government officials less likely to view the applicable operating company in a favorable light and could potentially negatively affect legislative or regulatory processes or outcomes, as well as lead to increased regulatory oversight or more stringent legislative or regulatory requirements.

The base rates of Entergy Texas are established largely in traditional base rate case proceedings.Between base rate proceedings, Entergy Texas has available rate riders to recover the revenue requirements associated with certain incremental costs.These riders include a distribution cost recovery factor rider mechanism for the recovery of distribution-related capital investment and certain non-fuel MISO charges, a transmission cost recovery factor rider mechanism for the recovery of transmission-related capital investments, a generation cost recovery rider mechanism for the recovery of generation-related capital investments, and a fixed fuel factor mechanism for the recovery of MISO fuel and energy-related costs.Entergy Texas also is required to make a filing every three years,
287

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

at a minimum, reconciling its fuel and purchased power costs and fuel factor revenues.In the course of this reconciliation, the PUCT determines whether eligible fuel and fuel-related expenses and revenues are necessary and reasonable, and makes a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts for the reconciliation period.Entergy Texas also is required to file full base rate case proceedings every four years and within eighteen months of utilizing its generation cost recovery rider for investments above $200 million.

Between base rate cases, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi are able to adjust base rates annually through formula rate plans that utilize a forward test year (Entergy Arkansas) or forward-looking features (Entergy Mississippi).In response to Entergy Arkansas’s application for a general change in rates in 2015, the APSC approved the formula rate plan tariff proposed by Entergy Arkansas including its use of a projected year test period and an initial five-year term.The initial five-year term expires in 2021. Entergy Arkansas has requested APSC approval of the extension of the formula rate plan tariff for an additional five years through 2026.If Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan were terminated or not extended beyond the initial term, Entergy Arkansas could file an application for a general change in rates that may include a request for continued regulation under a formula rate review mechanism.If Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan is terminated, it would revert to the more traditional rate case environment or seek approval of a new formula rate plan.Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi recover fuel and purchased energy and certain non-fuel costs through other APSC-approved and MPSC-approved tariffs, respectively.

Entergy Louisiana historically sets electric base rates annually through a formula rate plan using an historic test year.The form of the formula rate plan, on a combined basis, was approved in connection with the business combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and largely followed the formula rate plans that were approved by the LPSC in connection with the full electric base rate cases filed by those companies in February 2013.The formula rate plan was most recently extended through the test year 2019; certain modifications were made in that extension, including a decrease to the allowed return on equity and the addition of a transmission cost recovery mechanism.The formula rate plan continues to include exceptions from the rate cap and sharing requirements for certain large capital investment projects, including acquisition or construction of generating facilities and purchase power agreements approved by the LPSC and as noted, for certain transmission investment, among other items.MISO fuel and energy-related costs are recoverable in Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause.Entergy Louisiana has a pending request to extend its formula rate plan 2016with certain modifications, including implementation of a distribution investment recovery mechanism and use of end of period rate base.In the event that the electric formula rate plan is not renewed or extended, Entergy Louisiana would revert to the more traditional rate case environment.

Entergy New Orleans previously operated under a formula rate plan that ended with the 2011 test year.Based on a settlement agreement approved by the City Council, with limited exceptions, the base rates of Entergy New Orleans were frozen until rates were implemented in connection with the base rate case filed by Entergy New Orleans in 2018.In November 2019 the City Council issued a resolution resolving the rate case, with rates to become effective retroactive to August 2019.The resolution allows Entergy New Orleans to implement a three-year formula rate plan, beginning with the 2019 test year as adjusted for forward-looking known and measurable changes.In November 2020 the City Council issued a resolution approving a settlement of the 2018 rate case.As part of this settlement, Entergy New Orleans agreed to postpone the filing showing of its first test year formula rate plan to 2021 and, in return, to be provided an additional test year for the three-year cycle.See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion.

The rates of System Energy are established by the FERC, and the costs allowed to be charged pursuant to these rates are, in turn, passed through to the participating Utility operating companies through the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which has monthly billings that reflect the current operating costs of, and investment in, Grand Gulf. Retail regulators and other parties may seek to initiate proceedings at FERC to investigate the prudence of costs included in the rates charged under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and examine, among other things, the
288

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Mississippi’sCorporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

reasonableness or prudence of the operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures, allowed rates of return and rate base, and previously incurred capital expenditures. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is currently the subject of several litigation proceedings at the FERC, including a challenge with respect to System Energy’s uncertain tax positions, sale leaseback arrangement, authorized return on equity and capital structure, and a separate request for FERC to initiate a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Entergy cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings nor can it predict whether any outcome could have a material effect on Entergy’s or System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the proceedings. System Energy has received FERC acceptance for billing protocols to provide retail regulators with information regarding rates billed under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

The Utility operating companies and System Energy, and the energy industry as a whole, have experienced a period of rising costs and investments, and an upward trend in spending, especially with respect to infrastructure investments, which is likely to continue in the foreseeable future and could result in more frequent rate cases and requests for, and the continuation of, cost recovery mechanisms.  For information regarding rate case proceedings and formula rate plans applicable to the Utility operating companies, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

Changes to state or federal legislation or regulation affecting electric generation, electric and natural gas transmission, distribution, and related activities could adversely affect Entergy and the Utility operating companies’ financial position, results of operations, or cash flows and their utility businesses.

If legislative and regulatory structures evolve in a manner that erodes the Utility operating companies’ exclusive rights to serve their regulated customers, they could lose customers and sales and their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially affected. Additionally, technological advances in energy efficiency and distributed energy resources are reducing the costs of these technologies and together with ongoing state and federal subsidies, the increasing penetration of these technologies could result in reduced sales by the Utility operating companies. Such loss of sales could put upward pressure on rates, resulting in adverse regulatory actions to mitigate such effects on rates. Entergy and the Utility operating companies cannot predict if or when they may be subject to changes in legislation or regulation, or the extent and timing of reductions of the cost of distributed energy resources, nor can they predict the impact of these changes on their results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The Utility operating companies recover fuel, purchased power, and associated costs through rate mechanisms that are subject to risks of delay or disallowance in regulatory proceedings.

The Utility operating companies recover their fuel, purchased power, and associated costs from their customers through rate mechanisms subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment.  Because regulatory review can result in the disallowance of incurred costs found not to have been prudently incurred, including the cost of replacement power purchased when generators experience outages or when planned outages are extended, with the possibility of refunds to ratepayers, there exists some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs, particularly when there are substantial or sudden increases in such costs.  Regulators also may initiate proceedings to investigate the continued usage or the adequacy and operation of the fuel and purchased power recovery clauses of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, there can be no assurance that existing recovery mechanisms will remain unchanged or in effect at all.

The Utility operating companies’ cash flows can be negatively affected by the time delays between when gas, power, or other commodities are purchased and the ultimate recovery from customers of the costs in rates.  On occasion, when the level of incurred costs for fuel and purchased power rises very dramatically, some of the Utility operating companies may agree to defer recovery of a portion of that period’s fuel and purchased power costs for recovery at a later date, which could increase the near-term working capital and borrowing requirements of those companies.  For a description of fuel and purchased power recovery mechanisms and information regarding the regulatory proceedings for fuel and purchased power costs recovery, see Note 2 to the financial statements.
289

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


There remains uncertainty regarding the effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies.

The Utility operating companies historically engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating resources and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that had been approved by the FERC. The System Agreement terminated in its entirety on August 31, 2016.

There remains uncertainty regarding the long-term effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies because of the significant effect of the agreement on the generation and transmission functions of the Utility operating companies and the significant period of time (over 30 years) that it had been in existence. In the absence of the System Agreement, there remains uncertainty around the effectiveness of governance processes and the potential absence of federal authority to resolve certain issues among the Utility operating companies and their retail regulators.

In addition, although the System Agreement terminated in its entirety in August 2016, there are a few outstanding System Agreement proceedings at the FERC and at the D.C. Circuit that may require future adjustments, including challenges to the level and timing of payments made by Entergy Arkansas under the System Agreement. The outcome and timing of these FERC proceedings and resulting recovery and impact on rates cannot be predicted at this time.

For further information regarding the regulatory proceedings relating to the System Agreement, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO RTO tariff and their participation in the MISO RTO’s wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

On December 19, 2013, the Utility operating companies integrated into the MISO RTO. MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a bilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets. MISO tariff rules and system conditions, including transmission congestion, could affect the Utility operating companies’ ability to sell capacity, energy, and/or ancillary services in certain regions and/or the economic value of such sales, or the cost of serving the Utility operating companies’ respective loads, and MISO market rules may change in ways that cause additional risk.

The Utility operating companies participate in the MISO regional transmission planning process and are subject to risks associated with planning decisions that MISO makes in the exercise of control over the planning of the Utility operating companies’ transmission assets that are under MISO’s functional control. The Utility operating companies pay transmission rates that reflect the cost of transmission projects that the Utility operating companies do not own, which could increase cash or financing needs. In addition to the cash and financing-related risks arising from the potential additional cost allocation to the Utility operating companies from transmission projects of others, there is a risk that the Utility operating companies’ business and financial position could be harmed as a result of lost investment opportunities and other effects that flow from an increased number of competitive projects being approved and constructed that are interconnected with their transmission systems. Further, the terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets, the
290

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

allocation of transmission upgrade costs, the MISO-wide allowed base rate of return on equity, and any required MISO-related charges and credits are subject to regulation by the FERC. The operation of the Utility operating companies’ transmission system pursuant to the MISO tariff and their participation in the MISO wholesale markets may be adversely affected by regulatory or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements. In addition, orders from each of the Utility operating companies’ respective retail regulators generally require that the Utility operating companies make periodic filings, or generally allow the retail regulator to direct the making of such filings, setting forth the results of analysis of the costs and benefits realized from MISO membership as well as the projected costs and benefits of continued membership in MISO and/or requesting approval of their continued membership in MISO. These filings have been submitted periodically by each of the Utility operating companies as required by their respective retail regulators, and the outcome of the resulting proceedings may affect the Utility operating companies’ continued membership in MISO.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred as a result of severe weather (including from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta), or the impact on customer bills of permitted storm cost recovery, could have material effects on Entergy and its Utility operating companies.

Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition can be materially affected by the destructive effects of severe weather.  Severe weather can also result in significant outages for the customers of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, reduced revenues for the Utility operating companies during the period of the outages.  A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred or revenues lost as a result of severe weather could have a material effect on Entergy and those Utility operating companies affected by severe weather. In addition, the recovery of major storm restoration costs from customers could effectively limit our ability to make planned capital or other investments due to the impact of such storm cost recovery on customer bills.

In August and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of the Utility’s service territories in Louisiana, including New Orleans, Texas, and to a lesser extent, in Arkansas and Mississippi. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of the electrical system damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $2.4 billion. Because Entergy has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

Nuclear Operating, Shutdown, and Regulatory Risks

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy)

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities must consistently operate their nuclear power plants at high capacity factors in order to be successful, and lower capacity factors could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Nuclear capacity factors significantly affect the results of operations of certain Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  Nuclear plant operations involve substantial fixed operating
291

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

costs.  Consequently, to be successful, a plant owner must consistently operate its nuclear power plants at high capacity factors, consistent with safety requirements. For the Utility operating companies that own nuclear plants, lower capacity factors can increase production costs by requiring the affected companies to generate additional energy, sometimes at higher costs, from their owned or contractually controlled facilities or purchase additional energy in the spot or forward markets in order to satisfy their supply needs.  For the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants, lower capacity factors directly affect revenues and cash flow from operations.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward sales are comprised of various hedge products, many of which have some degree of operational-contingent price risk. Certain unit-contingent contracts guarantee specified minimum capacity factors. In the event plants with these contracts were operating below the guaranteed capacity factors, Entergy would be subject to price risk for the undelivered power.  Further, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear forward sales contracts can also be on a firm LD basis, which subjects Entergy to increasing price risk as capacity factors decrease. Many of these firm hedge products have damages risk.

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy periodically shut down their nuclear power plants to replenish fuel.  Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such refueling outages.  If refueling outages last longer than anticipated or if unplanned outages arise, Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected.

Outages at nuclear power plants to replenish fuel require the plant to be “turned off.”  Refueling outages generally are planned to occur once every 18 to 24 months.  Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such planned outages, which typically extends the planned outage duration.  When refueling outages last longer than anticipated or a plant experiences unplanned outages, capacity factors decrease, and maintenance costs may increase.

Certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy face risks related to the purchase of uranium fuel (and its conversion, enrichment, and fabrication). These risks could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, Entergy’s nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable prices through 2020 and beyond. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium miners. While there are a number of possible alternate suppliers that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, the pricing of any such alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply at that time. Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S. Market prices for nuclear fuel have been extremely volatile from time to time in the past and may be subject to increased volatility due to the imposition of tariffs, domestic purchase requirements or limitations on importation of uranium or uranium products from foreign countries, or shifting trade arrangements between countries.  Although Entergy’s nuclear fuel contract portfolio provides a degree of hedging against market risks for several years, costs for nuclear fuel in the future cannot be predicted with certainty due to normal inherent market uncertainties, and price changes could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.

Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance and reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. These service providers are fewer in number than uranium suppliers. For conversion and enrichment services, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures to ensure a reliable supply of enriched uranium for fabrication into nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel; therefore, Entergy relies upon additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight of the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality of its nuclear fuel. Certain of the suppliers and service providers are located in or dependent upon countries, such as Russia, in which international sanctions or tariffs could further restrict the ability of such
292

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

suppliers to continue to supply fuel or provide such services at acceptable prices or at all.  The inability of such suppliers or service providers to perform such obligations could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies and System Energy.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business face the risk that the NRC will change or modify its regulations, suspend or revoke their licenses, or increase oversight of their nuclear plants, which could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Under the Atomic Energy Act and Energy Reorganization Act, the NRC regulates the operation of nuclear power plants.  The NRC may modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility and impose civil penalties for failure to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, related regulations, or the terms of the licenses for nuclear facilities. Interested parties may also intervene which could result in prolonged proceedings. A change in the Atomic Energy Act, other applicable statutes, or the applicable regulations or licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, may require a substantial increase in capital expenditures or may result in increased operating or decommissioning costs and could materially affect the results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition of Entergy (through Entergy Wholesale Commodities), its Utility operating companies, or System Energy.  A change in the classification of a plant owned by one of these companies under the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process, which is the NRC’s program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response, also could cause the owner of the plant to incur material additional costs as a result of the increased oversight activity and potential response costs associated with the change in classification.For additional information concerning the current classification of the plants owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see “Regulation of Entergy’s Business- Regulation of the Nuclear Power Industry - NRC Reactor Oversight Process” in Part I, Item 1.

Events at nuclear plants owned by one of these companies, as well as those owned by others, may lead to a change in laws or regulations or the terms of the applicable licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, or may cause the NRC to increase oversight activity or initiate actions to modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility, or impose civil penalties.  As a result, if an incident were to occur at any nuclear generating unit, whether an Entergy nuclear generating unit or not, it could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities are exposed to risks and costs related to operating and maintaining their nuclear power plants, and their failure to maintain operational efficiency at their nuclear power plants could materially affect Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

The nuclear generating units owned by certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy,and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business began commercial operations in the 1970s-1980s.  Older equipment may require more capital expenditures to keep each of these nuclear power plants operating safely and efficiently.  This equipment is also likely to require periodic upgrading and improvement.  Any unexpected failure, including failure associated with breakdowns, forced outages, or any unanticipated capital expenditures, could result in increased costs, some of which costs may not be fully recoverable by the Utility operating companies and System Energy in regulatory proceedings should there be a determination of imprudence.  Operations at any of the nuclear generating units owned and operated by Entergy’s subsidiaries could degrade to the point where the affected unit needs to be shut down or operated at less than full capacity.  If this were to happen, identifying and correcting the causes may require significant time and expense.  A decision may be made to close a unit rather than incur the expense of restarting it or returning the unit to full capacity.  For the Utility operating companies and System Energy, this could result in certain costs being stranded and potentially not fully recoverable in regulatory proceedings. For Entergy Wholesale Commodities, this could result in lost revenue and increased fuel and purchased power expense to meet
293

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

supply commitments and penalties for failure to perform under their contracts with customers. In addition, the operation and maintenance of Entergy’s nuclear facilities require the commitment of substantial human resources that can result in increased costs.

The nuclear industry continues to address susceptibility to the effects of stress corrosion cracking and other corrosion mechanisms on certain materials within plant systems.  The issue is applicable at all nuclear units to varying degrees and is managed in accordance with industry standard practices and guidelines that include in-service examinations, replacements, and mitigation strategies.  Developments in the industry or identification of issues at the nuclear units could require unanticipated remediation efforts that cannot be quantified in advance.

Moreover, Entergy is becoming more dependent on fewer suppliers for key parts of Entergy’s nuclear power plants that may need to be replaced or refurbished, and in some cases, parts are no longer available and have to be reverse-engineered for replacement.  In addition, certain major parts have long lead-times to manufacture if an unplanned replacement is needed. This dependence on a reduced number of suppliers and long lead-times on certain major parts for unplanned replacements could result in delays in obtaining qualified replacement parts and, therefore, greater expense for Entergy.

The costs associated with the storage of the spent nuclear fuel of certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, as well as the costs of and their ability to fully decommission their nuclear power plants, could be significantly affected by the timing of the opening of a spent nuclear fuel disposal facility, as well as interim storage and transportation requirements.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants incur costs for the on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel.  The approval of a license for a national repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, such as the one proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, or any interim storage facility, and the timing of such facility opening, will significantly affect the costs associated with on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel.  For example, while the DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing of Yucca Mountain and, after the license is granted by the NRC, to construct the repository and commence the receipt of spent fuel, the NRC licensing of the Yucca Mountain repository is effectively at a standstill. These actions are prolonging the time before spent fuel is removed from Entergy’s plant sites.  Because the DOE has not accomplished its objectives, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts, and Entergy has sued the DOE for such breach.  Furthermore, Entergy is uncertain as to when the DOE will commence acceptance of spent fuel from its facilities for storage or disposal.  As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at the companies’ nuclear sites and maintenance costs on existing storage facilities, including aging management of fuel storage casks, may increase.  The costs of on-site storage are also affected by regulatory requirements for such storage.  In addition, the availability of a repository or other off-site storage facility for spent nuclear fuel may affect the ability to fully decommission the nuclear units and the costs relating to decommissioning.  For further information regarding spent fuel storage, see the “Critical Accounting EstimatesNuclear Decommissioning CostsSpent Fuel Disposal” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy and Note 8 to the financial statements.

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to pay substantial retrospective premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act in the event of a nuclear incident, and losses not covered by insurance could have a material effect on Entergy’s and their results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

Accidents and other unforeseen problems at nuclear power plants have occurred both in the United States and elsewhere.  The Price-Anderson Act limits each reactor owner’s public liability (off-site) for a single nuclear incident to the payment of retrospective premiums into a secondary insurance pool, which is referred to as Secondary Financial Protection, up to approximately $137.6 million per reactor.  With 97 reactors currently
294

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

participating, this translates to a total public liability cap of approximately $14 billion per incident.  The limit is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation, a change in the primary limit of insurance coverage, and changes in the number of licensed reactors.  As required by the Price-Anderson Act, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities carry the maximum available amount of primary nuclear off-site liability insurance with American Nuclear Insurers, which is $450 million for each operating site.  Claims for any nuclear incident exceeding that amount are covered under Secondary Financial Protection.  As a result, in the event of a nuclear incident that causes damages (off-site) in excess of the primary insurance coverage, each owner of a nuclear plant reactor, including Entergy’s Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners, regardless of fault or proximity to the incident, will be required to pay a retrospective premium, equal to its proportionate share of the loss in excess of the primary insurance level, up to a maximum of approximately $137.6 million per reactor per incident (Entergy’s maximum total contingent obligation per incident is $1.101 billion).  The retrospective premium payment is currently limited to approximately $21 million per year per incident per reactor until the aggregate public liability for each licensee is paid up to the $137.6 million cap.

NEIL is a utility industry mutual insurance company, owned by its members, including the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants. All member plants could be subject to an annual assessment (retrospective premium of up to 10 times current annual premium for all policies) should the NEIL surplus (reserve) be significantly depleted due toinsured losses.  As of December 31, 2020, the maximum annual assessment amounts total $104 million for the Utility plants.  Retrospective premium insurance available through NEIL’s reinsurance treaty can cover the potential assessments and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants currently maintain the retrospective premium insurance to cover those potential assessments.

As an owner of nuclear power plants, Entergy participates in industry self-insurance programs and could be liable to fund claims should a plant owned by a different company experience a major event.  Any resulting liability from a nuclear accident may exceed the applicable primary insurance coverage and require contribution of additional funds through the industry-wide program that could significantly affect the results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries.

The decommissioning trust fund assets for the nuclear power plants owned by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may not be adequate to meet decommissioning obligations if market performance and other changes decrease the value of assets in the decommissioning trusts, if one or more of Entergy’s nuclear power plants is retired earlier than the anticipated shutdown date, if the plants cost more to decommission than estimated, or if current regulatory requirements change, which then could require significant additional funding.

Owners of nuclear generating plants have an obligation to decommission those plants.  Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants maintain decommissioning trust funds for this purpose.  Certain of the Utility operating companies collect funds from their customers, which are deposited into the trusts covering the units operated for or on behalf of those companies.  Those rate collections, as adjusted from time to time by rate regulators, are generally based upon operating license lives and trust fund balances as well as estimated trust fund earnings and decommissioning costs.  Assets in these trust funds are subject to market fluctuations, will yield uncertain returns that may fall below projected return rates, and may result in losses resulting from the recognition of impairments of the value of certain securities held in these trust funds.

Under NRC regulations, nuclear plant owners are permitted to project the NRC-required decommissioning amount, based on an NRC formula or a site-specific estimate, and the amount that will be available in each nuclear power plant’s decommissioning trusts combined with any other decommissioning financial assurances in place.  The projections are made based on the operating license expiration date and the mid-point of the subsequent
295

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

decommissioning process, or the anticipated actual completion of decommissioning if a site-specific estimate is used. If the projected amount of each individual plant’s decommissioning trusts exceeds the NRC-required decommissioning amount, then its NRC license termination decommissioning obligations are considered to be funded in accordance with NRC regulations.  If the projected costs do not sufficiently reflect the actual costs required to decommission these nuclear power plants, or funding is otherwise inadequate, or if the formula, formula inputs, or site-specific estimate is changed to require increased funding, additional resources or commitments would be required.  Furthermore, depending upon the level of funding available in the trust funds, the NRC may not permit the trust funds to be used to pay for related costs such as the management of spent nuclear fuel that are not included in the NRC’s formula.  The NRC may also require a plan for the provision of separate funding for spent fuel management costs.  In addition to NRC requirements, there are other decommissioning-related obligations for certain of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, which management believes it will be able to satisfy.

Further, federal or state regulatory changes, including mandated increases in decommissioning funding or changes in the methods or standards for decommissioning operations, may also increase the funding requirements of, or accelerate the timing for funding of, the obligations related to the decommissioning of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants or may restrict the decommissioning-related costs that can be paid from the decommissioning trusts.  Such changes also could result in the need for additional contributions to decommissioning trusts, or the posting of parent guarantees, letters of credit, or other surety mechanisms. As a result, under any of these circumstances, Entergy’s results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition could be materially affected.

An early plant shutdown (either generally or relative to current expectations), poor investment results, or higher than anticipated decommissioning costs (including as a result of changing regulatory requirements) could cause trust fund assets to be insufficient to meet the decommissioning obligations, with the result that the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to provide significant additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning, which, with respect to the Utility operating companies, may not be recoverable from customers in a timely fashion or at all.

For further information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs, management’s decision to exit the merchant power business, the impairment charges that resulted from such decision, and the planned sales of Palisades and Indian Point Energy Center (which, in each case, will include the transfer of the associated decommissioning trusts), see the “Critical Accounting Estimates- Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, and Notes 9 and 14 to the financial statements.

New or existing safety concerns regarding operating nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel could lead to restrictions upon the operation and decommissioning of Entergy’s nuclear power plants.

New and existing concerns are being expressed in public forums about the safety of nuclear generating units and nuclear fuel. These concerns have led to, and may continue to lead to, various proposals to Federal regulators and governing bodies in some localities where Entergy’s subsidiaries own nuclear generating units for legislative and regulatory changes that might lead to the shutdown of nuclear units, additional requirements or restrictions related to spent nuclear fuel on-site storage and eventual disposal, or other adverse effects on owning, operating, and decommissioning nuclear generating units.  Entergy vigorously responds to these concerns and proposals.  If any of the existing proposals, or any proposals that may arise in the future with respect to legislative and regulatory changes, become effective, they could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations and financial condition.

296

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

(Entergy Corporation)

Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are exposed to price risk.

Entergy and its subsidiaries do not have a regulator-authorized rate of return on their capital investments in non-utility businesses.  As a result, the sale of capacity and energy from the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, unless otherwise contracted, is subject to the fluctuation of market power prices. In order to reduce future price risk to desired levels, Entergy Wholesale Commodities utilizes contracts that are unit-contingent and Firm LD and various products such as forward sales, options, and collars.  As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power generation plants had sold forward 98% in 2021 and 99% in 2022 of its generation portfolio’s planned energy output, reflecting the planned shutdown and sale of the remaining Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants by mid-2022.

Market conditions such as product cost, market liquidity, and other portfolio considerations influence the product and contractual mix.  The obligations under unit-contingent agreements depend on a generating asset that is operating; if the generation asset is not operating, the seller generally is not liable for damages.  For some unit-contingent obligations, however, there is also a guarantee of availability that provides for the payment to the power purchaser of contract damages, if incurred, in the event the unit owner fails to deliver power as a result of the failure of the specified generation unit to generate power at or above a specified availability threshold.  Firm LD sales transactions may be exposed to substantial operational price risk, a portion of which may be capped through the use of risk management products, to the extent that the plants do not run as expected and market prices exceed contract prices.

Market prices may fluctuate substantially, sometimes over relatively short periods of time, and at other times experience sustained increases or decreases.  Demand for electricity and its fuel stock can fluctuate dramatically, creating periods of substantial under- or over-supply.  During periods of over-supply, prices might be depressed.  Also, from time to time there may be political pressure, or pressure from regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over wholesale and retail energy commodity and transportation rates, to impose price limitations, credit requirements, bidding rules, and other mechanisms to address volatility and other issues in these markets.

The effects of sustained low natural gas prices and power market structure challenges have resulted in lower market prices for electricity in the power regions where the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are located. In addition, currently the market design under which the plants operate does not adequately compensate merchant nuclear plants for their environmental and fuel diversity benefits in the region. These conditions were primary factors leading to Entergy’s decision to shut down (or sell) Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power plants before the end of their operating licenses.

The price that different counterparties offer for various products including forward sales is influenced both by market conditions as well as the contract terms such as damage provisions, credit support requirements, and the number of available counterparties interested in contracting for the desired forward period.  Depending on differences between market factors at the time of contracting versus current conditions, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contract portfolio may have average contract prices above or below current market prices, including at the expiration of the contracts, which may significantly affect Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.  New hedges are generally layered into on a rolling forward basis, which tends to drive hedge over-performance to market in a falling price environment, and hedge underperformance to market in a rising price environment; however, hedge timing, product choice, and hedging costs will also affect these results. See the “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries.  Since Entergy Wholesale Commodities has announced the closure (or sale) of its nuclear plants, Entergy Wholesale Commodities may enter into fewer forward sales contracts for output from such plants.

297

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to substantial governmental regulation and may be adversely affected by legislative, regulatory, or market design changes, as well as liability under, or any future inability to comply with, existing or future regulations or requirements.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to extensive regulation under federal, state, and local laws. Compliance with the requirements under these various regulatory regimes may cause the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to incur significant additional costs, and failure to comply with such requirements could result in the shutdown of the non-complying facility, the imposition of liens, fines, and/or civil or criminal liability.

Public utilities under the Federal Power Act are required to obtain FERC acceptance of their rate schedules for wholesale sales of electricity.  Each of the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants that generates electricity, as well as Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC, is a “public utility” under the Federal Power Act by virtue of making wholesale sales of electric energy and/or owning wholesale electric transmission facilities.  The FERC has granted these generating and power marketing companies the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates.  The FERC’s orders that grant the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating and power marketing companies market-based rate authority reserve the right to revoke or revise that authority if the FERC subsequently determines that the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business can exercise market power in transmission or generation, create barriers to entry, or engage in abusive affiliate transactions.  In addition, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ market-based sales are subject to certain market behavior rules, and if any of its generating and power marketing companies were deemed to have violated one of those rules, they would be subject to potential disgorgement of profits associated with the violation and/or suspension or revocation of their market-based rate authority and potential penalties of up to $1.29 million per day per violation.  If the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating or power marketing companies were to lose their market-based rate authority, such companies would be required to obtain the FERC’s acceptance of a cost-of-service rate schedule and could become subject to the accounting, record-keeping, and reporting requirements that are imposed on utilities with cost-based rate schedules.  This could have an adverse effect on the rates the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business charges for power from its facilities.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is also affected by legislative and regulatory changes, as well as changes to market design, market rules, tariffs, cost allocations, and bidding rules imposed by the existing Independent System Operators.  The Independent System Operators that oversee most of the wholesale power markets may impose, and in the future may continue to impose, mitigation, including price limitations, offer caps and other mechanisms, to address some of the volatility and the potential exercise of market power in these markets.  These types of price limitations and other regulatory mechanisms may have an adverse effect on the profitability of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business’ generation facilities that sell energy and capacity into the wholesale power markets. For further information regarding federal, state, and local laws and regulation applicable to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Regulation of Entergy’s Business” section in Part I, Item 1.

The regulatory environment applicable to the electric power industry is subject to changes as a result of restructuring initiatives at both the state and federal levels. Entergy cannot predict the future design of the wholesale power markets or the ultimate effect that the changing regulatory environment will have on the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.  In addition, in some of these markets, interested parties have proposed material market design changes, including the elimination of a single clearing price mechanism, have raised claims that the competitive marketplace is not working because energy prices in wholesale markets exceed the marginal cost of operating nuclear power plants, and have made proposals to re-regulate the markets, impose a generation tax, or require divestitures by generating companies to reduce their market share.  Other proposals to re-regulate may be made and legislative or other attention to the electric power market restructuring process may delay or reverse the deregulation process, which could require material changes to business planning models.  If competitive restructuring of the electric power markets is reversed, modified, discontinued, or delayed, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected.
298

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


The power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to impairment charges in certain circumstances, which could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

Entergy reviews long-lived assets held in all of its business segments whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that recoverability of these assets is uncertain.  Generally, the determination of recoverability is based on the undiscounted net cash flows expected to result from the operations of such assets.  Projected net cash flows depend on the expected operating life of the assets, the future operating costs associated with the assets, the efficiency and availability of the assets and generating units, and the future market and price for energy and capacity over the remaining life of the assets.  In particular, the remaining assets of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to further impairment in connection with the closure and sale of its nuclear power plants. Moreover, prior to the closure and sale of these plants, the failure of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to achieve forecasted operating results and cash flows, an unfavorable change in forecasted operating results or cash flows, a reduction in the expected remaining useful life of a unit, or a decline in observable industry market multiples could all result in potential additional impairment charges for the affected assets.

If Entergy concludes that any of its nuclear power plants is unlikely to operate through its planned shutdown date, which conclusion would be based on a variety of factors, such a conclusion could result in a further impairment of part or all of the carrying value of the plant.  Any impairment charge taken by Entergy with respect to its long-lived assets, including the remaining power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, would likely be material in the quarter that the charge is taken and could otherwise have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. For further information regarding evaluating long-lived assets for impairment, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates - Impairment of Long-lived Assets” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries and for further discussion of the impairment charges, see Note 14 to the financial statements.

General Business

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Entergy and the Utility operating companies depend on access to the capital markets and, at times, may face potential liquidity constraints, which could make it more difficult to handle future contingencies such as natural disasters or substantial increases in gas and fuel prices.  Disruptions in the capital and credit markets may adversely affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to meet liquidity needs, access capital and operate and grow their businesses, and the cost of capital.

Entergy’s business is capital intensive and dependent upon its ability to access capital at reasonable rates and other terms.  At times there are also spikes in the price for natural gas and other commodities that increase the liquidity requirements of the Utility operating companies and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.  In addition, Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity needs could significantly increase in the event of a hurricane or other weather-related or unforeseen disaster similar to that experienced in Entergy’s service territory with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike in 2008, Hurricane Isaac in 2012, and Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta in 2020.  The occurrence of one or more contingencies, including a delay in regulatory recovery of fuel or purchased power costs or storm restoration costs, an acceleration of payments or decreased credit lines, less cash flow from operations than expected, changes in regulation or governmental policy (including tax and trade policy), or other unknown events, could cause the financing needs of Entergy and its subsidiaries to increase.  In addition, accessing the debt capital markets more frequently in these situations may result in an increase in leverage.  Material leverage increases could negatively affect the credit ratings of Entergy and the Utility operating companies, which in turn could negatively affect access to the capital markets.
299

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy


The inability to raise capital on favorable terms, particularly during times of high interest rates, and uncertainty or reduced liquidity in the capital markets, could negatively affect Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to maintain and to expand their businesses.  Access to capital markets could be restricted and/or borrowing costs could be increased due to certain sources of debt and equity capital being unwilling to invest in companies that experience extreme weather events, that rely on fossil fuels or offerings to fund fossil fuel projects, or due to risks related to climate change. Events beyond Entergy’s control may create uncertainty that could increase its cost of capital or impair its ability to access the capital markets, including the ability to draw on its bank credit facilities.  Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the degree of success they will have in renewing or replacing their credit facilities as they come up for renewal.  Moreover, the size, terms, and covenants of any new credit facilities may not be comparable to, and may be more restrictive than, existing facilities.  If Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to access the credit and capital markets on terms that are reasonable, they may have to delay raising capital, issue shorter-term securities and/or bear an unfavorable cost of capital, which, in turn, could impact their ability to grow their businesses, decrease earnings, significantly reduce financial flexibility and/or limit Entergy Corporation’s ability to sustain its current common stock dividend level.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

A downgrade in Entergy Corporations or its subsidiariescredit ratings could negatively affect Entergy Corporations and its subsidiariesability to access capital and/or could require Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries to post collateral, accelerate certain payments, or repay certain indebtedness.

There are a number of factors that rating agencies evaluate to arrive at credit ratings for each of Entergy Corporation and the Registrant Subsidiaries, including each Registrant’s regulatory framework, ability to recover costs and earn returns, diversification and financial strength and liquidity.  If one or more rating agencies downgrade Entergy Corporation’s, any of the Utility operating companies’, or System Energy’s ratings, particularly below investment grade, borrowing costs would increase, the potential pool of investors and funding sources would likely decrease, and cash or letter of credit collateral demands may be triggered by the terms of a number of commodity contracts, leases, and other agreements.

Most of Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ suppliers and counterparties require sufficient creditworthiness to enter into transactions.  If Entergy Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ ratings decline, particularly below investment grade, or if certain counterparties believe Entergy Corporation or the Utility operating companies are losing creditworthiness and demand adequate assurance under fuel, gas, and purchased power contracts, the counterparties may require posting of collateral in cash or letters of credit, prepayment for fuel, gas or purchased power or accelerated payment, or counterparties may decline business with Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries. At December 31, 2020 based on power prices at that time, Entergy had liquidity exposure of $62 million under the guarantees in place supporting Entergy Wholesale Commodities transactions and $6 million of posted cash collateral. In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation’s credit rating to below investment grade, based on power prices as of December 31, 2020, Entergy would have been required to provide approximately $30 million of additional cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements. As of December 31, 2020, the liquidity exposure associated with Entergy Wholesale Commodities assurance requirements, including return of previously posted collateral from counterparties, would increase by $22 million for a $1 per MMBtu increase in gas prices in both the short- and long-term markets.

Recent U.S. tax legislation may materially adversely affect Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and CARES Act of 2020 significantly changed the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, including taxation of U.S. corporations, by, among other things, reducing the federal corporate income tax rate, limiting interest deductions, and altering the expensing of capital expenditures. The interpretive
300

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

guidance issued by the IRS and state tax authorities may be inconsistent with Entergy’s own interpretation and the legislation could be subject to amendments, which could lessen or increase certain impacts of the legislation.

As further described in Note 3 to the financial statements, as a result of amortization of accumulated deferred income taxes and payment of such amounts to customers in 2019, Entergy’s net regulatory liability for income taxes balance is $1.6 billion as of December 31, 2020. Depending on the outcome of IRS examinations or tax positions and elections that Entergy may make, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries may be required to record additional charges or credits to income tax expense. Further, there may be other material effects resulting from the legislation that have not been identified.

See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on 2018, 2019 and 2020 results of operations and financial condition, the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the regulatory proceedings that have considered the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Changes in taxation as well as the inherent difficulty in quantifying potential tax effects of business decisions could negatively impact Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Entergy and its subsidiaries make judgments regarding the potential tax effects of various transactions and results of operations to estimate their obligations to taxing authorities.  These tax obligations include income, franchise, real estate, sales and use, and employment-related taxes.  These judgments include provisions for potential adverse outcomes regarding tax positions that have been taken.  Entergy and its subsidiaries also estimate their ability to utilize tax benefits, including those in the form of carryforwards for which the benefits have already been reflected in the financial statements.  Changes in federal, state, or local tax laws, adverse tax audit results or adverse tax rulings on positions taken by Entergy and its subsidiaries could negatively affect Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. For further information regarding Entergy’s income taxes, see Note 3 to the financial statements.

Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to successfully execute on their business strategies, including their ability to complete strategic transactions, is subject to significant risks, and, as a result, they may be unable to achieve some or all of the anticipated results of such strategies, which could materially affect their future prospects, results of operations, and benefits that they anticipate from such transactions.

Entergy and its subsidiaries’ future prospects and results of operations significantly depend on their ability to successfully implement their business strategies, which are subject to business, regulatory, economic, and other risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond their control. As a result, Entergy and its subsidiaries may be unable to fully achieve the anticipated results of such strategies.

Additionally, Entergy and its subsidiaries have pursued and may continue to pursue strategic transactions including merger, acquisition, divestiture, joint venture, restructuring, or other strategic transactions. For example, Entergy has entered into an agreement to sell its equity interests in the subsidiary that owns the Palisades Nuclear Plant and the decommissioned Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant and an agreement to sell the equity interests of Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3, in each case after each of the plants has been shut down and defueled. Also, a significant portion of Entergy’s utility business over the next several years includes the construction and/or purchase of a variety of generating units. These transactions and plans are or may become subject to regulatory approval and other material conditions or contingencies. The failure to complete these transactions or plans or any future strategic transaction successfully or on a timely basis could have an adverse effect on Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ financial condition or results of operations and the market’s perception of Entergy’s ability to execute its strategy. Further, these transactions, and any completed or future strategic transactions, involve substantial risks, including the following:

301

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

acquired businesses or assets may not produce revenues, earnings, or cash flow at anticipated levels;
acquired businesses or assets could have environmental, permitting, or other problems for which contractual protections prove inadequate;
Entergy and/or its subsidiaries may assume liabilities that were not disclosed to them, that exceed their estimates, or for which their rights to indemnification from the seller are limited;
Entergy may experience issues integrating businesses into its internal controls over financial reporting;
the disposition of a business, including Entergy’s planned exit from the merchant power business, could divert management’s attention from other business concerns;
Entergy and/or its subsidiaries may be unable to obtain the necessary regulatory or governmental approvals to close a transaction, such approvals may be granted subject to terms that are unacceptable, or Entergy or its subsidiaries otherwise may be unable to achieve anticipated regulatory treatment of any such transaction or acquired business or assets; and
Entergy or its subsidiaries otherwise may be unable to achieve the full strategic and financial benefits that they anticipate from the transaction, or such benefits may be delayed or may not occur at all.

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be successful in managing these or any other significant risks that they may encounter in acquiring or divesting a business, or engaging in other strategic transactions, which could have a material effect on their business, financial condition or results of operations.

The completion of capital projects, including the construction of power generation facilities, and other capital improvements involve substantial risks.  Should such efforts be unsuccessful, the financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity of Entergy and the Utility operating companies could be materially affected.

Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ ability to complete capital projects, including the construction of power generation facilities, or make other capital improvements, in a timely manner and within budget is contingent upon many variables and subject to substantial risks.  These variables include, but are not limited to, project management expertise, escalating costs for materials, labor, and environmental compliance, and reliance on suppliers for timely and satisfactory performance.  Delays in obtaining permits, shortages in materials and qualified labor, levels of public support or opposition, suppliers and contractors not performing as expected or required under their contracts and/or experiencing financial problems that inhibit their ability to fulfill their obligations under contracts, changes in the scope and timing of projects, poor quality initial cost estimates from contractors, the inability to raise capital on favorable terms, changes in commodity prices affecting revenue, fuel costs, or materials costs,  downward changes in the economy, changes in law or regulation, including environmental compliance requirements, and other events beyond the control of the Utility operating companies or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may occur that may materially affect the schedule, cost, and performance of these projects.  If these projects or other capital improvements are significantly delayed or become subject to cost overruns or cancellation, Entergy and the Utility operating companies could incur additional costs and termination payments, or face increased risk of potential write-off of the investment in the project.  In addition, the Utility operating companies could be exposed to higher costs and market volatility, which could affect cash flow and cost recovery, should their respective regulators decline to approve the construction of the project or new generation needed to meet the reliability needs of customers at the lowest reasonable cost.

For further information regarding capital expenditure plans and other uses of capital in connection with capital projects, including the potential construction and/or purchase of additional generation supply sources within the Utility operating companies’ service territory, and as to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy and each of the Registrant Subsidiaries.

302

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Failure to attract, retain and manage an appropriately qualified workforce could negatively affect Entergy or its subsidiaries’ results of operations.

We rely on a large and changing workforce of team members, including employees, contractors and temporary staffing. Certain events, such as an aging workforce, mismatching of skill sets, failing to appropriately anticipate future workforce needs, or the unavailability of contract resources may lead to operating challenges and increased costs. The challenges include lack of resources, loss of knowledge base, and the time required for skill development. In this case, costs, including costs for contractors to replace employees, productivity costs, and safety costs, may increase. Failure to hire and adequately train replacement employees, or the future availability and cost of contract labor may adversely affect the ability to manage and operate the business, especially considering the workforce needs associated with nuclear generation facilities and new skills required to operate a modernized, technology-enabled power grid. If Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to successfully attract, retain, and manage an appropriately qualified workforce, their results of operations, financial position, and cash flows could be negatively affected.

The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs to fulfill their obligations related to environmental and other matters.

The businesses in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business operate are subject to extensive environmental regulation by local, state, and federal authorities.  These laws and regulations affect the manner in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business conduct their operations and make capital expenditures.  These laws and regulations also affect how the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business manage air emissions, discharges to water, wetlands impacts, solid and hazardous waste storage and disposal, cooling and service water intake, the protection of threatened and endangered species, certain migratory birds and eagles, hazardous materials transportation, and similar matters.  Federal, state, and local authorities continually revise these laws and regulations, and the laws and regulations are subject to judicial interpretation and to the permitting and enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies.  Developing and implementing plans for facility compliance with these requirements can lead to capital, personnel, and operation and maintenance expenditures.  Violations of these requirements can subject the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to enforcement actions, capital expenditures to bring existing facilities into compliance, additional operating costs or operating restrictions to achieve compliance, remediation and clean-up costs, civil penalties, and exposure to third parties’ claims for alleged health or property damages or for violations of applicable permits or standards.  In addition, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business potentially are subject to liability under these laws for the costs of remediation of environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned or operated by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities and of property contaminated by hazardous substances they generate.  The Utility operating companies currently are involved in proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been released and may be subject to additional proceedings in the future.  The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to environmental compliance.

Emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, mercury, particulates, greenhouse gases, and other regulated air emissions from generating plants potentially are subject to increased regulation, controls, and mitigation expenses.  In addition, existing air regulations and programs promulgated by the EPA often are challenged legally, or are revised or withdrawn by the EPA, sometimes resulting in large-scale changes to anticipated regulatory regimes and the resulting need to shift course, both operationally and economically, depending on the nature of the changes.  Risks relating to global climate change, initiatives to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions, and water availability issues are discussed below.

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be able to obtain or maintain all required environmental regulatory approvals.  If there is a delay in obtaining any required environmental regulatory approvals, or if Entergy and its subsidiaries fail to obtain, maintain, or comply with any such approval, the operation of its facilities could be
303

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

stopped or become subject to additional costs.  For further information regarding environmental regulation and environmental matters, see the “Regulation of Entergys Business– Environmental Regulation” section of Part I, Item 1.

The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may incur substantial costs related to reliability standards.

Entergy’s business is subject to extensive and mandatory reliability standards.  Such standards, which are established by the NERC, the SERC, and other regional enforcement entities, are approved by the FERC and frequently are reviewed, amended, and supplemented.  Failure to comply with such standards could result in the imposition of fines or civil penalties, and potential exposure to third party claims for alleged violations of such standards.  The standards, as well as the laws and regulations that govern them, are subject to judicial interpretation and to the enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies.  In addition to exposure to civil penalties and fines, the Utility operating companies have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to compliance with new and existing reliability standards, including costs associated with the Utility operating companies’ transmission system and generation assets.  In addition, the retail regulators of the Utility operating companies possess the jurisdiction, and in some cases have exercised such jurisdiction, to impose standards governing the reliable operation of the Utility operating companies’ distribution systems, including penalties if these standards are not met. The changes to the reliability standards applicable to the electric power industry are ongoing, and Entergy cannot predict the ultimate effect that the reliability standards will have on its Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses.

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)

Weather, economic conditions, technological developments, and other factors may have a material impact on electricity and gas usage and otherwise materially affect the Utility operating companiesresults of operations and system reliability.

Temperatures above normal levels in the summer tend to increase electric cooling demand and revenues, and temperatures below normal levels in the winter tend to increase electric and gas heating demand and revenues.  As a corollary, mild temperatures in either season tend to decrease energy usage and resulting revenues.  Higher consumption levels coupled with seasonal pricing differentials typically cause the Utility operating companies to report higher revenues in the third quarter of the fiscal year than in the other quarters.  Extreme weather conditions including hurricanes or tropical storms, flooding events, or ice storms may stress the Utility operating companies’ generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on their ability to meet peak customer demand, increased regulatory oversight, and reduced customer satisfaction.  These extreme conditions could have a material effect on the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

Entergy’s electricity sales volumes are affected by a number of factors including weather and economic conditions, trends in energy efficiency, new technologies, and self-generation alternatives, including the willingness and ability of large industrial customers to develop co-generation facilities that greatly reduce their grid demand. Some of these factors are inherently cyclical or temporary in nature, such as the weather or economic conditions, and rarely have a long-lasting effect on Entergy’s operating results.  Others, such as the organic turnover of appliances and their replacement with more efficient ones, adoption of newer technologies including smart thermostats, new building codes, distributed energy resources, energy storage, demand side management, and rooftop solar are having a more permanent effect by reducing sales growth rates from historical norms. As a result of these emerging efficiencies and technologies, the Utility operating companies may lose customers or experience lower average use per customer in the residential and commercial classes, and continuing advances have the potential to further limit sales growth in the future. The Utility operating companies also may face competition from other companies offering products and services to Entergy’s customers. Electricity sales to industrial
304

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

customers, in particular, benefit from steady economic growth and favorable commodity markets; however, industrial sales are sensitive to changes in conditions in the markets in which its customers operate.  Negative changes in any of these or other factors, particularly sustained economic downturns or sluggishness, have the potential to result in slower sales growth or sales declines and increased bad debt expense, which could materially affect Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

The effects of climate change, environmental and regulatory obligations intended to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions or increase clean or renewable energy requirements or to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions, or achieving voluntary climate commitments could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.

In an effort to address climate change concerns, some federal, state, and local authorities are calling for additional laws and regulations aimed at known or suspected causes of climate change.  For example, in response to the United States Supreme Court’s 2007 decision holding that the EPA has authority to regulate emissions of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” under the Clean Air Act, the EPA, various environmental interest groups, and other organizations focused considerable attention on CO2 emissions from power generation facilities and their potential role in climate change.  Since that ruling, the EPA has promulgated regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions from certain vehicles, and from new, existing, and significantly modified stationary sources of emissions, including electric generating units. As examples of state action, in the Northeast, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative establishes a cap on CO2 emissions from electric power plants and requires generators to purchase emission permits to cover their CO2 emissions, and a similar program has been developed in California. In Louisiana, the Office of the Governor announced the creation of a Climate Initiatives Task Force and issued an executive order that established a path to net-zero emissions by 2050 while the City Council of New Orleans passed a renewable and clean portfolio standard that sets a goal of net-zero emissions by 2040 and absolute zero emissions by 2050. The impact that continued changes in the governmental response to climate change risk will have on existing and pending environmental laws and regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions is currently unclear.

Developing and implementing plans for compliance with greenhouse gas emissions reduction, clean/renewable energy requirements, or for achieving voluntary climate commitments can lead to additional capital, personnel, and operation and maintenance expenditures and could significantly affect the economic position of existing facilities and proposed projects. The operations of low or non-emitting generating units (such as nuclear units) at lower than expected capacity factors could require increased generation from higher emitting units, thus increasing the company’s greenhouse gas emission rate. Moreover, long-term planning to meet environmental requirements can be negatively impacted and costs may increase to the extent laws and regulations change prior to full implementation.  These requirements could, in turn, lead to changes in the planning or operations of balancing authorities or organized markets in areas where the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities do business. Violations of such requirements may subject Entergy Wholesale Commodities and the Utility operating companies to enforcement actions, capital expenditures to bring existing facilities into compliance, additional operating costs or operating restrictions to achieve compliance, civil penalties, and exposure to third parties’ claims for alleged health or property damages or for violations of applicable permits or standards.  To the extent Entergy believes any of these costs are recoverable in rates, however, additional material rate increases for customers could be resisted by Entergy’s regulators and, in extreme cases, Entergy’s regulators might attempt to deny or defer timely recovery of these costs.  Future changes in regulation or policies governing the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases or mix of generation sources could (i) result in significant additional costs to Entergy’s utility operating companies, their suppliers or customers, (ii) make some of Entergy’s electric generating units uneconomical to maintain or operate, (iii) result in the early retirement of generation facilities and stranded costs if Entergy’s utility operating companies are unable to fully recover the costs and investment in generation and (iv) could increase the difficulty that Entergy and its utility operating companies have with obtaining or maintaining required environmental regulatory approvals, each of which could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy and its subsidiaries.  In addition, lawsuits have occurred or are reasonably expected against emitters of greenhouse gases alleging that these
305

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

companies are liable for personal injuries and property damage caused by climate change.  These lawsuits may seek injunctive relief, monetary compensation, and punitive damages.

In addition to the regulatory and financial risks associated with climate change discussed above, potential physical risks from climate change include an increase in sea level, wind and storm surge damages, wildfires, wetland and barrier island erosion, risks of flooding and changes in weather conditions, (such as increases in precipitation, drought, or changes in average temperatures), and potential increased impacts of extreme weather conditions or storms.  Entergy subsidiaries own assets in, and serve, communities that are at risk from sea level rise, changes in weather conditions, storms, and loss of the protection offered by coastal wetlands.  A significant portion of the nation’s oil and gas infrastructure is located in these areas and susceptible to storm damage that could be aggravated by the physical impacts of climate change, which could give rise to fuel supply interruptions and price spikes. Entergy and its subsidiaries also face the risk that climate change could impact the availability and quality of water supply necessary for operations.

These and other physical changes could result in changes in customer demand, increased costs associated with repairing and maintaining generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on the Entergy System’s ability to meet peak customer demand, more frequent and longer lasting outages, increased regulatory oversight, and lower customer satisfaction.  Also, to the extent that climate change adversely impacts the economic health of a region or results in energy conservation or demand side management programs, it may adversely impact customer demand and revenues.  Such physical or operational risks could have a material effect on Entergy’s, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’, System Energy’s, and the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

In September 2020, Entergy voluntarily committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Technology research and development, innovation, and advancement are critical to Entergy’s ability to achieve this commitment. Moreover, Entergy cannot predict the ultimate impact of achieving this objective, or the various implementation aspects, on its system reliability, or its results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Continued and future availability and quality of water for cooling, process, and sanitary uses could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business.

Water is a vital natural resource that is also critical to the Utility operating companies’, System Energy’s, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ business operations.  Entergy’s facilities use water for cooling, boiler make-up, sanitary uses, potable supply, and many other uses.  Entergy’s Utility operating companies also own and/or operate hydroelectric facilities.  Accordingly, water availability and quality are critical to Entergy’s business operations.  Impacts to water availability or quality could negatively impact both operations and revenues.

Entergy secures water through various mechanisms (ground water wells, surface waters intakes, municipal supply, etc.) and operates under the provisions and conditions set forth by the provider and/or regulatory authorities.  Entergy also obtains and operates in substantial compliance with water discharge permits issued under various provisions of the Clean Water Act and/or state water pollution control provisions. Regulations and authorizations for both water intake and use and for waste discharge can become more stringent in times of water shortages, low flows in rivers, low lake levels, low groundwater aquifer volumes, and similar conditions.  The increased use of water by industry, agriculture, and the population at large, population growth, and the potential impacts of climate change on water resources may cause water use restrictions that affect Entergy and its subsidiaries.

306

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be adequately hedged against changes in commodity prices, which could materially affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

To manage near-term financial exposure related to commodity price fluctuations, Entergy and its subsidiaries, including the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, may enter into contracts to hedge portions of their purchase and sale commitments, fuel requirements, and inventories of natural gas, uranium and its conversion and enrichment, coal, refined products, and other commodities, within established risk management guidelines.  As part of this strategy, Entergy and its subsidiaries may utilize fixed- and variable-price forward physical purchase and sales contracts, futures, financial swaps, and option contracts traded in the over-the-counter markets or on exchanges.  However, Entergy and its subsidiaries normally cover only a portion of the exposure of their assets and positions to market price volatility, and the coverage will vary over time.  In addition, Entergy also elects to leave certain volumes during certain years unhedged.  To the extent Entergy and its subsidiaries have unhedged positions, fluctuating commodity prices can materially affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ results of operations and financial position.

Although Entergy and its subsidiaries devote a considerable effort to these risk management strategies, they cannot eliminate all the risks associated with these activities.  As a result of these and other factors, Entergy and its subsidiaries cannot predict with precision the impact that risk management decisions may have on their business, results of operations, or financial position.

Entergy’s over-the-counter financial derivatives are subject to rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that are designed to promote transparency, mitigate systemic risk, and protect against market abuse. Entergy cannot predict the impact any proposed or not fully-implemented final rules will have on its ability to hedge its commodity price risk or on over-the-counter derivatives markets as a whole, but such rules and regulations could have a material effect on Entergy's risk exposure, as well as reduce market liquidity and further increase the cost of hedging activities.

Entergy has guaranteed or indemnified the performance of a portion of the obligations relating to hedging and risk management activities.  Reductions in Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ credit quality or changes in the market prices of energy commodities could increase the cash or letter of credit collateral required to be posted in connection with hedging and risk management activities, which could materially affect Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ liquidity and financial position.

The Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties may not meet their obligations, which may materially affect the Utility operating companies and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

The hedging and risk management practices of the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties that owe Entergy and its subsidiaries money, energy, or other commodities will not perform their obligations.  Currently, some hedging agreements contain provisions that require the counterparties to provide credit support to secure all or part of their obligations to Entergy or its subsidiaries.  If the counterparties to these arrangements fail to perform, Entergy or its subsidiaries may enforce and recover the proceeds from the credit support provided and acquire alternative hedging arrangements, which credit support may not always be adequate to cover the related obligations.  In such event, Entergy and its subsidiaries might incur losses in addition to amounts, if any, already paid to the counterparties.  In addition, the credit commitments of Entergy’s lenders under its bank facilities may not be honored for a variety of reasons, including unexpected periods of financial distress affecting such lenders, which could materially affect the adequacy of its liquidity sources.

307

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

Market performance and other changes may decrease the value of benefit plan assets, which then could require additional funding and result in increased benefit plan costs.

The performance of the capital markets affects the values of the assets held in trust under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans.  A decline in the market value of the assets may increase the funding requirements relating to Entergy’s benefit plan liabilities and also result in higher benefit costs. As the value of the assets decreases, the “expected return on assets” component of benefit costs decreases, resulting in higher benefits costs. Additionally, asset losses are incorporated into benefit costs over time, thus increasing benefits costs.  Volatility in the capital markets has affected the market value of these assets, which may affect Entergy’s planned levels of contributions in the future.  Additionally, changes in interest rates affect the liabilities under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans; as interest rates decrease, the liabilities increase, potentially requiring additional funding and recognition of higher liability carrying costs.  The funding requirements of the obligations related to the pension benefit plans can also increase as a result of changes in, among other factors, retirement rates, life expectancy assumptions, or Federal regulations.  For further information regarding Entergy’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans, refer to the “Critical Accounting Estimates– Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy and each of its Registrant Subsidiaries and Note 11 to the financial statements.

The litigation environment in the states in which certain Entergy subsidiaries operate poses a significant risk to those businesses.

Entergy and its subsidiaries are involved in the ordinary course of business in a number of lawsuits involving employment, commercial, asbestos, hazardous material and ratepayer matters, and injuries and damages issues, among other matters.  The states in which the Utility operating companies operate have proven to be unusually litigious environments.  Judges and juries in these states have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases.  Entergy and its subsidiaries use legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against them, but the litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk.

Terrorist attacks, cyber attacks, system failures or data breaches of Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ or our suppliers’ technology systems may adversely affect Entergy’s results of operations.

Entergy and its subsidiaries operate in a business that requires evolving information technology systems that include sophisticated data collection, processing systems, software, network infrastructure, and other technologies that are becoming more complex and may be subject to mandatory and prescriptive reliability and security standards. The functionality of Entergy’s technology systems depends on its own and its suppliers’ and their contractors’ technology. Suppliers’ and their contractors’ technology systems to which Entergy is connected directly or indirectly support a variety of business processes and activities to store sensitive data, including (i) intellectual property, (ii) proprietary business information, (iii) personally identifiable information of customers and employees, and (iv) data with respect to invoicing and the collection of payments, accounting, procurement, and supply chain activities. Any significant failure or malfunction of such information technology systems could result in loss of data or disruptions of operations.

There have been attacks and threats of attacks on energy infrastructure by cyber actors, including those associated with foreign governments. As an operator of critical infrastructure, Entergy and its subsidiaries face heightened risk of an act or threat of terrorism, cyber attacks, and data breaches, whether as a direct or indirect act against one of Entergy’s generation, transmission or distribution facilities, operations centers, infrastructure, or information technology systems used to manage, monitor, and transport power to customers and perform day-to-day business functions. An actual act could affect Entergy’s ability to operate, including its ability to operate the information technology systems and network infrastructure on which it relies to conduct business.

Given the rapid technological advancements of existing and emerging threats, Entergy’s technology systems remain inherently vulnerable despite implementations and enhancements of the multiple layers of security
308

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

and controls. If Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ technology systems were compromised and unable to detect or recover in a timely fashion to a normal state of operations, Entergy or its subsidiaries could be unable to perform critical business functions that are essential to the company’s well-being and could result in a loss of its confidential, sensitive, and proprietary information, including personal information of its customers, employees, suppliers, and others in Entergy’s care.

Any such attacks, failures or data breaches could have a material effect on Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ business, financial condition, results of operations or reputation. Although we purchase insurance coverage for cyber-attacks or data breaches, such insurance may not be adequate to cover all losses that might arise in connection with these events. Such events may also expose Entergy to an increased risk of litigation (and associated damages and fines).

(Entergy New Orleans)

The effect of higher purchased gas cost charges to customers taking gas service may adversely affect Entergy New Orleans’s results of operations and liquidity.

Gas rates charged to retail gas customers are comprised primarily of purchased gas cost charges, which provide no return or profit to Entergy New Orleans, and distribution charges, which provide a return or profit to the utility.  Distribution charges recover fixed costs on a volumetric basis and, thus, are affected by the amount of gas sold to customers.  When purchased gas cost charges increase due to higher gas procurement costs, customer usage may decrease, especially in weaker economic times, resulting in lower distribution charges for Entergy New Orleans, which could adversely affect results of operations. Purchased gas cost charges, which comprise most of a customer’s bill and may be adjusted monthly, represent gas commodity costs that Entergy New Orleans recovers from its customers.  Entergy New Orleans’s cash flows can be affected by differences between the time period when gas is purchased and the time when ultimate recovery from customers occurs.

(System Energy)

System Energy owns and, through an affiliate, operates a single nuclear generating facility, and it is dependent on sales to affiliated companies for all of its revenues. Certain contractual arrangements relating to System Energy, the affiliated companies, and these revenues are the subject of ongoing litigation and regulatory proceedings.

System Energy’s operating revenues are derived from the allocation of the capacity, energy, and related costs associated with its 90% ownership/leasehold interest in Grand Gulf.  Charges under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are paid by the Utility operating companies as consideration for their respective entitlements to receive capacity and energy.  The useful economic life of Grand Gulf is finite and is limited by the terms of its operating license, which expires in November 2044. System Energy’s financial condition depends both on the receipt of payments from the Utility operating companies under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and on the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is currently the subject of several litigation proceedings at the FERC, including a challenge with respect to System Energy’s uncertain tax positions, sale leaseback arrangement, authorized return on equity and capital structure, and a request in a separate proceeding for FERC to initiate a broader investigation of rates under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC has also authorized the filing of a prudence complaint at the FERC relating to Grand Gulf operations. Entergy cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings nor can it predict whether any outcome could have a material effect on Entergy’s or System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the proceedings. The Utility operating companies have agreed to implement certain protocols for providing retail regulators with information regarding rates billed under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

For information regarding the Unit Power Sales Agreement, the sale and leaseback transactions and certain other agreements relating to the Entergy System companies’ support of System Energy, see Notes 5 and 8 to the
309

Part I Item 1A & 1B
Entergy Corporation, Utility operating companies, and System Energy

financial statements and the “Utility - System Energy and Related Agreements” section of Part I, Item 1.

(Entergy Corporation)

As a holding company, Entergy Corporation depends on cash distributions from its subsidiaries to meet its debt service and other financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock.

Entergy Corporation is a holding company with no material revenue generating operations of its own or material assets other than the stock of its subsidiaries. Accordingly, all of its operations are conducted by its subsidiaries. Entergy Corporation’s ability to satisfy its financial obligations, including the payment of interest and principal on its outstanding debt, and to pay dividends on its common stock depends on the payment to it of dividends or distributions by its subsidiaries. The subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay any dividends or make distributions to Entergy Corporation. The ability of such subsidiaries to make payments of dividends or distributions to Entergy Corporation depends on their results of operations and cash flows and other items affecting retained earnings, and on any applicable legal, regulatory, or contractual limitations on subsidiaries’ ability to pay such dividends or distributions. Prior to providing funds to Entergy Corporation, such subsidiaries have financial and regulatory obligations that must be satisfied, including among others, debt service and, in the case of Entergy Utility Holding Company and Entergy Texas, dividends and distributions on preferred securities. Any distributions from the Registrant Subsidiaries other than Entergy Texas and System Energy are paid directly to Entergy Utility Holding Company and are therefore subject to prior payment of distributions on its preferred securities.


310


ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The COVID-19 Pandemic

See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

February 2021 Winter Storms

See the “February 2021 Winter Storms” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the February 2021 winter storms. Entergy Arkansas’s preliminary estimate for the cost of mobilizing crews and restoring power is approximately $10 million. Natural gas purchases for Entergy Arkansas for February 1st through 25th, 2021 are approximately $105 million compared to natural gas purchases for February 2020 of $10 million.

Results of Operations

2020 Compared to 2019

Net Income

Net income decreased $17.7 million primarily due to lower volume/weather, a formula rate plan provision recorded in 2020 to reflect the 2019 historical year netting adjustment, and higher depreciation and amortization expenses, partially offset by higher retail electric price and lower other operation and maintenance expenses. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the 2019 historical year netting adjustment.

Operating Revenues

Following is an analysis of the change in operating revenues comparing 2020 to 2019:
Amount
(In Millions)
2019 operating revenues$2,259.6 
Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income(278.5)
Volume/weather(72.2)
Retail electric price57.4 
Return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers118.2 
2020 operating revenues$2,084.5

Entergy Arkansas’s results include revenues from rate mechanisms designed to recover fuel, purchased power, and other costs such that the revenues and expenses associated with these items generally offset and do not affect net income. “Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income” includes the revenue variance associated with these items.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to a decrease of 1,069 GWh, or 5%, in billed electricity usage, including decreased commercial and industrial usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales, partially offset by an increase in residential usage as a
311

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

result of the COVID-19 pandemic. See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to the $56.5 million annual formula rate plan increase related to the 2020 projected test year included in the 2019 formula rate plan filing effective with the first billing cycle of January 2020. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the formula rate plan filing.

The return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers resulted from the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes through a tax adjustment rider beginning in April 2018. In 2020, $8.1 million was returned to customers as compared to $126.3 million in 2019. There is no effect on net income as the reduction in operating revenues in each period was offset by a reduction in income tax expense. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Other Income Statement Variances

Nuclear refueling outage expenses decreased primarily due to the amortization of lower costs associated with the most recent outages as compared to previous outages.

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $18.3 million in nuclear generation expenses primarily due to lower nuclear labor costs, including contract labor, in part as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;
a decrease of $13.2 million in non-nuclear generation expenses primarily due to lower long-term service agreement expenses;
an $11.2 million write-off in 2019 of specific costs related to the potential construction of scrubbers at the White Bluff plant. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the write-off;
higher nuclear insurance refunds of $7.8 million;
a decrease of $5.9 million primarily due to contract costs in 2019 related to initiatives to explore new customer products and services; and
a decrease of $5.8 million in energy efficiency costs.

The decrease was partially offset by the effects of recording in 2019 a final judgment to resolve claims in the ANO damages case against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. The damages awarded include the reimbursement of approximately $11.9 million of spent nuclear fuel storage costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service.

Other income increased primarily due to changes in decommissioning trust fund investment activity.

Other regulatory credits - net for 2020 includes a provision of $43.5 million to reflect the 2019 historical year netting adjustment included in the APSC’s December 2020 order in the 2020 formula rate plan proceeding. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the 2020 formula rate plan proceeding.

The effective income tax rates were 16.3% for 2020 and (21.6%) for 2019. The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of 21% for 2019 was primarily due to the amortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. See Notes 2 and 3 to the financial statements for a discussion of the effects and regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 21% to the effective income tax rates.

312

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Entergy Arkansas’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of results of operations for 2019 compared to 2018.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018 were as follows:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period$3,519 $119 $6,216 
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities659,818 677,766 211,825 
Investing activities(795,709)(676,293)(688,727)
Financing activities324,500 1,927 470,805 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents188,609 3,400 (6,097)
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$192,128 $3,519 $119 

2020 Compared to 2019

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $17.9 million in 2020 primarily due to:

the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs;
lower collections of receivables from customers, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
the timing of payments to vendors.

The decrease was partially offset by:

a decrease in the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers in 2020 as compared to 2019. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act;
$25 million in proceeds received from the DOE in 2020 resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously expensed. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation; and
a decrease of $15.8 million in pension contributions in 2020. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.


313

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Investing Activities

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $119.4 million in 2020 primarily due to:

an increase of $79.5 million in storm spending;
an increase of $47.3 million in non-nuclear generation construction expenditures primarily due to increased spending on various projects in 2020;
an increase of $39.4 million in nuclear construction expenditures primarily as a result of work performed in 2020 on various ANO 2 outage projects;
an increase of $38.5 million as a result of fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements in the Utility business, material and service deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle; and
an increase of $30.3 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to investment in the reliability and infrastructure of Entergy Arkansas’s distribution system, including increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure.

The increase was partially offset by:

a decrease of $56 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a lower scope of work performed in 2020 as compared to 2019; and
$55 million in proceeds received from the DOE in 2020 resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously capitalized. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Financing Activities

Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $322.6 million in 2020 primarily due to:

issuances of $100 million of 4.0% Series mortgage bonds in March 2020 and $675 million of 2.65% Series mortgage bonds in September 2020;
money pool activity;
a decrease of $41.6 million in net long-term repayments in 2020 on the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility; and
a decrease of $20 million in common equity distributions in 2020 in order to maintain Entergy Arkansas’s capital structure.

The increase was partially offset by:

the issuance of $350 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds in March 2019;
the repayment in October 2020 of $200 million of 4.90% Series mortgage bonds due December 2052; and
the repayment in October 2020 of $125 million of 4.75% Series mortgage bonds due June 2063.

Decreases in Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool decreased by $21.6 million in 2020 compared to decreasing by $161.1 million in 2019. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.

See Note 5 to the financial statements for further details of long-term debt.


314

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Cash Flow” in Item 7 of Entergy Arkansas’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2019 compared to 2018.

Capital Structure

Entergy Arkansas’s debt to capital ratio is shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital ratio is primarily due to the net issuances of long-term debt in 2020.
 December 31,
2020
December 31,
2019
Debt to capital54.8 %53.0 %
Effect of excluding the securitization bonds— %— %
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)54.8 %53.0 %
Effect of subtracting cash(1.2 %)— %
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)53.6 %53.0 %

(a)Calculation excludes the securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy Arkansas.

Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents. Debt consists of short-term borrowings, finance lease obligations, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion. Capital consists of debt and equity. Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents. Entergy Arkansas uses the debt to capital ratios excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes they provide useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Arkansas’s financial condition because the securitization bonds, which have been repaid as of December 31, 2020, were non-recourse to Entergy Arkansas, as more fully described in Note 5 to the financial statements. Entergy Arkansas also uses the net debt to net capital ratio excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Arkansas’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy Arkansas’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.

Entergy Arkansas seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings.  To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a distribution, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the capital structure.  To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Arkansas may issue incremental debt or reduce distributions, or both, to maintain its capital structure.  In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as financing of large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing distributions, Entergy Arkansas may receive equity contributions to maintain its capital structure.

Uses of Capital

Entergy Arkansas requires capital resources for:

construction and other capital investments;
debt maturities or retirements;
working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel and purchased power costs; and
distribution and interest payments.

315

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Following are the amounts of Entergy Arkansas’s planned construction and other capital investments.
 202120222023
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:  
Generation$340 $355 $430 
Transmission40 45 190 
Distribution95 255 420 
Utility Support105 80 75 
Total$580 $735 $1,115 

Following are the amounts of Entergy Arkansas’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 20212022-20232024-2025After 2025Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)$611 $543 $581 $4,713 $6,448 
Operating leases (b)$14 $21 $15 $11 $61 
Finance leases (b)$3 $5 $3 $2 $13 
Purchase obligations (c)$452 $618 $509 $3,882 $5,461 

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.
(c)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Arkansas, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which are discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements.

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, Entergy Arkansas currently expects to contribute approximately $66.6 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $517 thousand to its other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2021, although the 2021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2021.  See “Critical Accounting Estimates– Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.

Also in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy Arkansas has $252 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions.  See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.

In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Arkansas includes specific investments in renewables such as the Searcy Solar Facility, Walnut Bend Solar Facility, and West Memphis Solar Facility; transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to enhance reliability and improve service to customers, including advanced meters and related investments; resource planning, including potential generation and renewables projects; system improvements; investments in ANO 1 and 2; software and security; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital. Management provides more information on long-term debt maturities in Note 5 to the financial statements.

316

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

As a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, Entergy Arkansas pays distributions from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.

Renewables

Searcy Solar Facility

In March 2019, Entergy Arkansas announced that it signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW solar energy facility that will be sited on approximately 800 acres in White County near Searcy, Arkansas.  The purchase is contingent upon, among other things, obtaining necessary approvals from applicable federal and state regulatory and permitting agencies.  The project is being constructed by a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources.  Entergy Arkansas will purchase the facility upon mechanical completion and after the other purchase contingencies have been met.  Closing is expected to occur by the end of 2021. In May 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the transaction is in the public interest and requesting all necessary approvals. In September 2019 other parties filed testimony largely supporting the resource acquisition but disputing Entergy Arkansas’s proposed method of cost recovery. Entergy Arkansas filed its rebuttal testimony in October 2019. In February 2020, Entergy Arkansas, the Attorney General, and the APSC general staff filed a partial settlement agreement asking the APSC to approve, based on the record in the proceeding, all issues except certain issues that are submitted to the APSC for determination. In April 2020 the APSC issued an order approving Entergy Arkansas’s acquisition of the Searcy Solar facility as being in the public interest, but declined to approve Entergy Arkansas’s preferred cost recovery rider mechanism, finding instead, based on the particular facts and circumstances presented, that the formula rate plan rider was a sufficient recovery mechanism for this resource.

Walnut Bend Solar Facility

In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the purchase of the 100 MW Walnut Bend Solar Facility is in the public interest. Entergy Arkansas requested a decision by the APSC by June 15, 2021 and primarily requests cost recovery through the formula rate plan rider. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2021. Closing is expected to occur in 2022.

West Memphis Solar Facility

In January 2021, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition with the APSC seeking a finding that the purchase of the 180 MW West Memphis Solar Facility is in the public interest. Entergy Arkansas requested a decision by the APSC by September 7, 2021 and primarily requests cost recovery through the formula rate plan rider. Closing is expected to occur in 2023.

Sources of Capital

Entergy Arkansas’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
debt or preferred membership interest issuances, including debt issuances to refund or retire currently outstanding or maturing indebtedness;
capital contributions; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.

Entergy Arkansas may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest rates are favorable.

317

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

All debt and common and preferred membership interest issuances by Entergy Arkansas require prior regulatory approval.  Debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in Entergy Arkansas’s bond indentures and other agreements.  Entergy Arkansas has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.

Entergy Arkansas’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
2020201920182017
(In Thousands)
$3,110($21,634)($182,738)($166,137)

See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.

Entergy Arkansas has a credit facility in the amount of $150 million scheduled to expire in September 2024. Entergy Arkansas also has a $25 million credit facility scheduled to expire in April 2021.  The $150 million credit facility includes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against $5 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, 2020, there were no cash borrowings and no letters of credit outstanding under the credit facilities. In addition, Entergy Arkansas is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO. As of December 31, 2020, a $1 million letter of credit was outstanding under Entergy Arkansas’s uncommitted letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the credit facilities.

The Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity has a credit facility in the amount of $80 million scheduled to expire in September 2022.  As of December 31, 2020, $12.2 million in loans were outstanding under the credit facility for the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility.

Entergy Arkansas obtained authorization from the FERC through July 2022 for short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $250 million at any time outstanding and borrowings by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s short-term borrowing limits. The long-term securities issuances of Entergy Arkansas are limited to amounts authorized by the FERC. The APSC has concurrent jurisdiction over Entergy Arkansas’s first mortgage bond/secured issuances. Entergy Arkansas has obtained long-term financing authorization from the FERC that extends through July 2022. Entergy Arkansas has obtained first mortgage bond/secured financing authorization from the APSC that extends through December 2022.

State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery

Retail Rates

2018 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2018 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2019 calendar year. The filing showed Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the 2016 calendar yeartwelve months ended December 31, 2019 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. Additionally, the filing included the first netting adjustment under the current formula rate plan for the historical test year 2017, reflecting the change in formula rate plan revenues associated with actual 2017 results when compared to the allowed rate of return on equity. The filing showedincluded a $32.6projected $73.4 million rate increase was necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity torevenue deficiency for 2019 and a $95.6 million revenue deficiency for the specified point2017 historical test year, for a total revenue requirement of adjustment$169 million for this filing. By operation of 9.96%, within the formula rate plan, bandwidth. In June 2016Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s joint stipulation with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff. The joint stipulation provided for a total revenue increase of $23.7 million. The revenue increase includes a $19.4 million increase through the formula rate plan, resulting in a return on common equity point of adjustment of 10.07%. The revenue increase also includes $4.3 million in incremental ad valorem tax expenses to be collected through an updated ad valorem tax adjustment rider. The revenue increase and ad valorem tax adjustment rider were effective with the July 2016 bills.

In March 2017, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2017 test year filing and 2016 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2016 calendar year and projected earned return for the 2017 calendar year to be within the formula rate plan bandwidth, resulting in no change in rates. In June 2017, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a stipulation that confirmed that Entergy

requirement is
363
318

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Mississippi’s earned returns for bothsubject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the 2016 look-back filingconstraint, the resulting increase was limited to four percent of total revenue, which originally was $65.4 million but was increased to $66.7 million based upon the APSC staff’s updated calculation of 2018 revenue. In October 2018, Entergy Arkansas and 2017 test year were within the respectiveparties to the proceeding filed joint motions to approve a partial settlement agreement as to certain factual issues and agreed to brief contested legal issues. In November 2018 the APSC held a hearing and was briefed on a contested legal issue. In December 2018 the APSC issued a decision related to the initial legal brief, approved the partial settlement agreement and $66.7 million revenue requirement increase, as well as Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan, bandwidths. with updated rates going into effect for the first billing cycle of January 2019.

2019 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In June 2017July 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed with the MPSCAPSC 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.  In October 2019 other parties in the proceeding filed their errors and objections requesting certain adjustments to Entergy Arkansas’s filing that would reduce or eliminate Entergy Arkansas’s proposed revenue change. Entergy Arkansas filed its response addressing the requested adjustments in October 2019. In its response, Entergy Arkansas accepted certain of the adjustments recommended by the General Staff of the APSC that would reduce the proposed formula rate plan rider revenue change to $14 million. Entergy Arkansas disputed the remaining adjustments proposed by the parties. In October 2019, Entergy Arkansas filed a unanimous settlement agreement with the other parties in the proceeding seeking APSC approval of a revised total formula rate plan rider revenue change of $10.1 million. In its July 2019 formula rate plan filing, Entergy Arkansas proposed to recover an $11.2 million regulatory asset, amortized over five years, associated with specific costs related to the potential construction of scrubbers at the White Bluff plant. Although Entergy Arkansas does not concede that the regulatory asset lacks merit, for purposes of reaching a settlement on the total formula rate plan rider amount, Entergy Arkansas agreed not to include the White Bluff scrubber regulatory asset cost in the 2019 formula rate plan filing or future filings. Entergy Arkansas recorded a write-off in 2019 of the $11.2 million White Bluff scrubber regulatory asset. In December 2019 the APSC approved the stipulation, which resultedsettlement as being in nothe public interest and approved Entergy Arkansas’s compliance tariff effective with the first billing cycle of January 2020.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In July 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2020 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2021 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2021, as amended through subsequent filings in the proceeding, and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2019. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 projected year is 8.22% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $64.3 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2019 historical year was 9.07% resulting in a $23.9 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change in rates.

Fuelfor the 2021 projected year and Purchased Power Cost Recovery

2019 historical year netting adjustment was $88.2 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include an energy costArkansas’s recovery rider thatof the revenue requirement is adjusted annually to reflect accumulated over- or under-recoveries. Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to a four percent annual audits conducted pursuantrevenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase was limited to $74.3 million. In October 2020 other parties in the authority of the MPSC.

Entergy Mississippi had a deferred fuel over-recovery balance of $58.3 million as of May 31, 2015, along with an under-recovery balance of $12.3 million under the power management rider. Pursuant to those tariffs, in July 2015, Entergy Mississippiproceeding filed for interim adjustments under both the energy cost recovery rider and the power management rider to flow through to customers the approximately $46 million net over-recovery over a six-month period. In August 2015, the MPSC approved the interim adjustments effective with September 2015 bills. In November 2015, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included a projected over-recovery balance of $48 million projected through January 31, 2016. In January 2016 the MPSC approved the redetermined annual factor effective February 1, 2016. The MPSC further ordered, however, that due to the significant change in natural gas price forecasts since Entergy Mississippi’s filing in November 2015 Entergy Mississippi should file a revised fuel factor with the MPSC no later than February 1, 2016. Pursuant to that order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a revised fuel factor. Additionally, because Entergy Mississippi’s projected over-recovery balance for the period ending January 31, 2016 was $68 million, in February 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed for another interim adjustment to the energy cost factor effective April 2016 to flow through to customers the projected over-recovery balance over a six-month period. That interim adjustment was approved by the MPSC in February 2016 effective for April 2016 bills.

In November 2016, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included an over-recovery of less than $2 million as of September 30, 2016. In January 2017 the MPSC approved the annual factor effective with February 2017 bills. Also in January 2017 the MPSC certified to the Mississippi Legislature the audit reports of its independent auditors for the fuel year ending September 30, 2016. In its order, the MPSC expressly reserved the right to review and determine the recoverability of any and all purchased power expenditures made during fiscal year 2016. The MPSC hired independent auditors to conduct an annual operations audit and a financial audit. The independent auditors issued their audit reports in December 2017. The audit reports included several recommendations for action by Entergy Mississippi but did not recommend any cost disallowances. In January 2018 the MPSC certified the audit reports to the Mississippi Legislature. In November 2017 the Public Utilities Staff separately engaged a consultant to review the outage at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station that began in 2016. The review is currently in progress.

In November 2017, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included an under-recovery of approximately $61.5 million as of September 30, 2017. Entergy Mississippi proposed a two-tiered energy cost factor designed to promote overall rate stability throughout 2018 particularly during the summer months. In January 2018 the MPSC approved the proposed energy cost factors effective for February 2018 bills.

Mississippi Attorney General Complaint

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 complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand.  Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded.  In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi.  The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court.  In August 2012 the District

errors
364
319

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Court issued an opinion denying the Attorney General’s motion for remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The defendantand objections recommending certain adjustments, and Entergy companies answered the complaint andArkansas filed a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act.  In May 2009 the defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive jurisdictionresponsive testimony disputing these adjustments. As part of the MPSC, and factual errors informula rate plan tariff the Attorney General’s complaint.calculation for the revenue constraint was updated based on actual revenues which had the effect of reducing the initially-proposed $74.3 million revenue requirement increase to $72.6 million. In September 2012October 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed with the District Court heard oral argument on Entergy’s motion for judgment onAPSC a unanimous settlement agreement reached with the pleadings.

In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issuedother parties that resolved all but one issue. As a decision in which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant Entergy companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denialresult of the motionsettlement agreement, Entergy Arkansas’s requested revenue increase was $68.4 million, including a $44.5 million increase for the projected 2021 year and a $23.9 million netting adjustment. The remaining issue litigated concerned the methodology used to remand.calculate the netting adjustment within the formula rate plan. In July 2015December 2020 the Fifth CircuitAPSC issued an order denyingrejecting the appeal, andnetting adjustment method used by Entergy Arkansas. Applying the Attorney General subsequentlyapproach ordered by the APSC changed the netting adjustment for the 2019 historical year from a $23.9 million deficiency to $43.5 million excess. Overall, the decision reduced Entergy Arkansas’s revenue adjustment for 2021 to $1 million. In December 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing of the requestAPSC’s decision, and in January 2021 the APSC granted further consideration of Entergy Arkansas’s petition. Based on the progress of the proceeding to date, in December 2020, Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory liability of $43.5 million to reflect the netting adjustment for interlocutory appeal,2019, as included in the APSC’s December 2020 order, which waswould be returned to customers in 2021. Also with the formula rate plan filing, Entergy Arkansas is requesting an extension of the formula rate plan rider for a second five-year term. Decisions by the APSC on the netting adjustment rehearing and the extension are expected in March 2021.

Internal Restructuring

In November 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed an application with the APSC seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy Arkansas to a new entity, which would ultimately be owned by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. In July 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed a settlement, reached by all parties in the APSC proceeding, resolving all issues. The APSC approved the settlement agreement and restructuring in August 2018. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Entergy Arkansas will credit retail customers $39.6 million over six years, beginning in 2019. Entergy Arkansas also denied. received the required FERC and NRC approvals.
In November 2018, Entergy Arkansas undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock at the aggregate redemption price of approximately $32.7 million.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. converted from an Arkansas corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy Arkansas, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Arkansas Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy Arkansas Power), and Entergy Arkansas Power assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy Arkansas Power to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy Arkansas Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.

In December 20152018, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Property, Inc., and Entergy Arkansas Power then changed its name to Entergy Arkansas, LLC. Entergy Arkansas, LLC holds substantially all of the District Court orderedassets, and assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. The transaction was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

320

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Production Cost Allocation Rider

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section in Note 2 to the financial statements.

Energy Cost Recovery Rider

Entergy Arkansas’s retail rates include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and purchased energy costs in monthly customer bills.  The rider utilizes the prior calendar-year energy costs and projected energy sales for the twelve-month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an energy cost rate, which is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over- or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy costs for the prior calendar year.  The energy cost recovery rider tariff also allows an interim rate request depending upon the level of over- or under-recovery of fuel and purchased energy costs.

In January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion with the APSC relating to its upcoming energy cost rate redetermination filing that was made in March 2014. In that motion, Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to exclude from the redetermination of its 2014 energy cost rate $65.9 million of incremental fuel and replacement energy costs incurred in 2013 as a result of the ANO stator incident. Entergy Arkansas requested that the APSC authorize Entergy Arkansas to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance, with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information was available regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident. In February 2014 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request to retain that amount in its deferred fuel balance. In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed for a change in rates pursuant to its formula rate plan rider. In that proceeding, the APSC approved a settlement agreement agreed upon by the parties, submitincluding a provision that requires Entergy Arkansas to initiate a regulatory proceeding for the purpose of recovering funds currently withheld from rates and related to the court undisputedstator incident, including the $65.9 million of deferred fuel and disputed facts that are materialpurchased energy costs previously noted, subject to certain timelines and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement. See the “ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews” section in Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ANO stator incident.

In March 2017, Entergy defendants’ motionArkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01164 per kWh to $0.01547 per kWh. The APSC staff filed testimony in March 2017 recommending that the redetermined rate be implemented with the first billing cycle of April 2017 under the normal operation of the tariff. Accordingly, the redetermined rate went into effect on March 31, 2017 pursuant to the tariff. In July 2017 the Arkansas Attorney General requested additional information to support certain of the costs included in Entergy Arkansas’s 2017 energy cost rate redetermination.

In March 2018, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase in the rate from $0.01547 per kWh to $0.01882 per kWh. The Arkansas Attorney General filed a response to Entergy Arkansas’s annual redetermination filing requesting that the APSC suspend the proposed tariff to investigate the amount of the redetermination or, alternatively, to allow recovery subject to refund. Among the reasons the Attorney General cited for judgment onsuspension were questions pertaining to how Entergy Arkansas forecasted sales and potential implications of the pleadings, as well as supplemental briefsTax Act. Entergy Arkansas replied to the Attorney General’s filing and stated that, to the extent there are questions pertaining to its load forecasting or the operation of the energy cost recovery rider, those issues exceed the scope of the instant rate redetermination. Entergy Arkansas also stated that potential effects of the Tax Act are appropriately considered in the APSC’s separate proceeding regarding potential implications of the same. Those filings were madetax law. The APSC general staff filed a reply to the Attorney General’s filing and agreed that Entergy Arkansas’s filing complied with the terms of the energy cost recovery rider. The redetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2018. Subsequently in January 2016.April 2018 the APSC issued an order declining to suspend Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider rate and declining to require further investigation at that time of the issues suggested by the Attorney General in the

321

In September 2016Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

proceeding. Following a period of discovery, the Attorney General filed a mandamus petitionsupplemental response in October 2018 raising new issues with Entergy Arkansas’s March 2018 rate redetermination and asserting that $45.7 million of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Courtincrease should be collected subject to refund pending further investigation. Entergy Arkansas filed to dismiss the Attorney General’s supplemental response, the APSC general staff filed a motion to strike the Attorney General’s filing, and the Attorney General filed a supplemental response disputing Entergy Arkansas and the APSC staff’s filing. Applicable APSC rules and processes authorize its general staff to initiate periodic audits of AppealsEntergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider. In late-2018 the APSC general staff notified Entergy Arkansas it has initiated an audit of the 2017 fuel costs. The time in which the audit will be complete is uncertain at this time.

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 asked the Fifth Circuitfiled a response to order the chief judge to reassign this case to another judge. In September 2016 the District Court denied the Entergy companies’Arkansas’s annual adjustment and included with its filing a motion for judgment oninvestigation of alleged overcharges to customers in connection with the pleadings. TheFERC’s October 2018 order in the opportunity sales proceeding. Entergy companiesArkansas filed a motion seekingits response to amend the District Court’s order denying the Entergy companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and allowing an interlocutory appeal. In October 2016 the Fifth Circuit granted the Attorney General’s motion for writin 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 mandamusthe FERC October 2018 order and directedrelated FERC orders in the chief judgeopportunity 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 assign the caseopportunity sales recovery proceeding.

In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected a new judge.decrease from $0.01462 per kWh to $0.01052 per kWh. The case was reassignedredetermined rate became effective with the first billing cycle in October 2016. April 2020 through the normal operation of the tariff.

Opportunity Sales Proceeding

In January 2017June 2009 the District CourtLPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources; (b) imprudently denied the Entergy companies’ motionSystem and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity; and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that prohibited sales to amendthird parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies.   The LPSC’s complaint challenged sales made beginning in 2002 and requested refunds.  In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint arguing among other things that the System Agreement contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company.  The FERC subsequently ordered a hearing in the proceeding.

After a hearing, the ALJ issued an initial decision in December 2010.  The ALJ found that the System Agreement allowed for Entergy Arkansas to make the sales to third parties but concluded that the sales should be accounted for in the same manner as joint account sales.  The ALJ concluded that “shareholders” should make refunds of the damages to the Utility operating companies, along with interest.  Entergy disagreed with several aspects of the ALJ’s initial decision and in January 2011 filed with the FERC exceptions to the decision.

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith.  The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated
322

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

with such opportunity sales as part of its load but provides a different allocation authority.  The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement.  The FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to quantify the effect of repricing the opportunity sales in accordance with the FERC’s June 2012 decision. The hearing was held in May 2013 and the ALJ issued an initial decision in August 2013. The LPSC, the APSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions. Entergy filed a brief on exceptions requesting that the FERC reverse the initial decision and a brief opposing certain exceptions taken by the LPSC and FERC staff.

In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denied Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirmed the FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

In May 2016, Entergy Services filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order arguing that payments made by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced as a result of the timing of the LPSC’s approval of certain contracts. Entergy Services also filed a request for clarification and/or rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order addressing the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The APSC and the LPSC also filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s April 2016 order. In September 2017 the FERC issued an order denying the request for rehearing on the issue of whether any payments by Entergy Arkansas to the other Utility operating companies should be reduced due to the timing of the LPSC’s approval of Entergy Arkansas’s wholesale baseload contract with Entergy Louisiana. In November 2017 the FERC issued an order denying all of the remaining requests for rehearing of the April 2016 order. In November 2017, Entergy Services filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit of the FERC’s orders in the first two phases of the opportunity sales case. In December 2017 the D.C. Circuit granted Entergy Services’ request to hold the appeal in abeyance pending final resolution of the related proceeding before the FERC. In January 2018 the APSC and the LPSC filed separate petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit, and the D.C. Circuit consolidated the appeals with Entergy Services’ appeal.

The hearing required by the FERC’s April 2016 order was held in May 2017. In July 2017 the ALJ issued an initial decision addressing whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and whether to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties.

Based on testimony previously submitted in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which included interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, and a deferred fuel regulatory asset of $75 million. Following its assessment of the course of the proceedings, including the FERC’s denial of rehearing in
323

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

November 2017 described above, in the fourth quarter 2017, Entergy Arkansas recorded an additional liability of $35 million and a regulatory asset of $31 million.

In October 2018 the FERC issued an order addressing the ALJ’s July 2017 initial decision. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision to cap the reduction in Entergy Arkansas’s payment to account for the increased bandwidth payments that Entergy Arkansas made to the other operating companies. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that Grand Gulf sales from January through September 2000 should be included in the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. The FERC affirmed on other grounds the ALJ’s rejection of the LPSC’s claim that certain joint account sales should be accounted for as part of the calculation of Entergy Arkansas’s payment. In November 2018 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s October 2018 decision. In December 2019 the FERC denied the LPSC’s request for rehearing. In January 2020 the LPSC appealed the December 2019 decision to the D.C. Circuit.

In December 2018, Entergy made a compliance filing in response to the FERC’s October 2018 order. 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. Refunds and interest in the following amounts were paid by Entergy Arkansas to the other operating companies in December 2018:
 Total refunds including interest
Payment/(Receipt)
 (In Millions)
PrincipalInterestTotal
Entergy Arkansas$68$67$135
Entergy Louisiana($30)($29)($59)
Entergy Mississippi($18)($18)($36)
Entergy New Orleans($3)($4)($7)
Entergy Texas($17)($16)($33)

Entergy Arkansas previously recognized a regulatory asset with a balance of $116 million as of December 31, 2018 for a portion of the payments due as a result of this proceeding.

As described above, the FERC’s opportunity sales orders have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In February 2020 all of the appeals were consolidated and in April 2020 the D.C. Circuit established a briefing schedule. Briefing was completed in September 2020 and oral argument was heard in December 2020.

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 November 2019 the FERC issued an order denying the LPSC’s complaint. The order concluded that the settlement agreement approved by the FERC in December 2015 terminating the System Agreement barred the LPSC’s new complaint. In December 2019 the LPSC requested rehearing of the FERC’s November 2019 order, and in July 2020 the FERC issued an order dismissing the LPSC’s request for rehearing. In September 2020 the LPSC appealed to the D.C. Circuit the FERC’s orders dismissing the new opportunity sales complaint. In November 2020 the D.C. Circuit issued an order establishing that briefing will occur in January 2021 through April 2021.

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
324

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

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. In January 2020 the APSC adopted a procedural schedule with a hearing in April 2020. In January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed a joint motion seeking to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s application alleging that the APSC, in a prior proceeding, ruled on the issues addressed in the application and determined that Entergy Arkansas’s requested relief violates the filed rate doctrine and the prohibition against retroactive ratemaking. Entergy Arkansas responded to the joint motion in February 2020 rebutting these arguments, including demonstrating that the claims in this proceeding differ substantially from those the APSC addressed previously and that the payment resulting from a FERC tariff violation for which Entergy Arkansas seeks retail cost recovery in this proceeding differs materially from the refunds resulting from a FERC tariff amendment that the APSC previously rejected on filed rate doctrine and the retroactive ratemaking grounds. In addition, in January 2020 the Attorney General and Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. filed testimony opposing the recovery by Entergy Arkansas of the opportunity sales payment but also claiming that certain components of the payment should be segregated and refunded to customers. In March 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony.

In July 2020 the APSC issued a decision finding that Entergy Arkansas’s application is not in the public interest. The order also directed Entergy Arkansas to refund to its retail customers within 30 days of the order the FERC-determined over-collection of $13.7 million, plus interest, associated with a recalculated bandwidth remedy. In addition to these primary findings, the order also denied the Attorney General’s request for Entergy Arkansas to prepare a compliance filing detailing all of the retail impacts from the opportunity sales and denied a request by the Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers to recalculate all costs using the revised responsibility ratio. Entergy Arkansas filed a motion for judgment ontemporary stay of the pleadings.30-day requirement to allow Entergy Arkansas a reasonable opportunity to seek rehearing of the APSC order, but in July 2020 the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s request for a stay and directed Entergy Arkansas to refund to its retail customers the component of the total FERC-determined opportunity sales payment that was associated with increased bandwidth remedy payments of $13.7 million, plus interest. The refunds were issued in the August 2020 billing cycle. While the APSC denied Entergy Arkansas’s stay request, Entergy Arkansas believes its actions were prudent and, therefore, the costs, including the $13.7 million, plus interest, are recoverable. In June 2017July 2020, Entergy Arkansas requested rehearing of the APSC order, which rehearing was denied by the APSC in August 2020. In September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of these payments. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint, to which Entergy Arkansas responded. Also in December 2020, Entergy Arkansas and the APSC held a pre-trial conference, and filed a report with the court in January 2021. The court scheduled a hearing for February 26, 2021 regarding issues addressed in the pre-trial conference report.

Net Metering Legislation

An Arkansas law was enacted effective July 2019 that, among other things, expands the definition of a “net metering customer” to include two additional types of customers: (1) customers that lease net metering facilities, subject to certain leasing arrangements, and (2) government entities or other entities exempt from state and federal income taxes that enter into a service contract for a net metering facility. The latter provision would allow eligible entities, many of whom are small and large general service customers, to purchase renewable energy directly from third party providers and receive bill credits for these purchases. The APSC was given authority under this law to address certain matters, such as cost shifting and the appropriate compensation for net metered energy and has initiated proceedings for this purpose. Because of the size and number of customers eligible under this new law, there is a risk of loss of load and the shifting of costs to customers. A hearing was held in December 2019, with utilities, cooperatives, the Arkansas Attorney General, industrial customers, and Entergy Arkansas advocating the need for establishment of a reasonable rate structure that takes into account impacts to non-net metering customers; an additional hearing was conducted in February 2020 for purposes of public comment only. The APSC issued an order in June 2020, and in July 2020 several parties, including Entergy Arkansas, filed for rehearing on multiple
325

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

grounds, including for the reasons that it imposes an unreasonable rate structure and allows facilities to net meter that do not meet the statutory definition of net metering facilities. After granting the rehearing requests, the APSC issued an order in September 2020 largely upholding its June 2020 order. In October 2020, Entergy Arkansas and several other parties filed an appeal of the APSC’s September 2020 order.

Separately, as directed by the APSC general staff, the APSC opened a case managementproceeding to compel utilities to amend their net metering tariffs to incorporate the provisions of the legislation that the APSC general staff considered “black letter law.” Entergy Arkansas, the Arkansas Attorney General, and other intervenors opposed this directive pending the development of the rules for implementation that are being considered in the separate net metering rulemaking docket. Nevertheless, reserving its rights, Entergy Arkansas has complied with the directive to amend its tariffs. Asserting procedural and due process violations, in January 2020, Entergy Arkansas and the Arkansas Attorney General separately appealed certain APSC orders in the proceeding.

COVID-19 Orders

In April 2020, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the APSC issued an order settingrequiring utilities, to the extent they had not already done so, to suspend service disconnections during the remaining pendency of the Arkansas Governor’s emergency declaration or until the APSC rescinds the directive. The order also authorizes utilities to establish a trial date in November 2018. Discovery is currently in progress.

Storm Damage Provision

Entergy Mississippi has approvalregulatory asset to record costs resulting from the MPSCsuspension of service disconnections, directs that in future proceedings the APSC will consider whether the request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, and requires utilities to collecttrack and report the costs and any savings directly attributable to suspension of disconnects. In May 2020 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas expanding deferred payment agreements to assist customers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Quarterly reporting began in August 2020 and the APSC ordered additional reporting in October 2020 regarding utilities’ transitional plans for ending the moratorium on service disconnects. In February 2021 the APSC issued an order finding that it is not in the public interest to immediately lift the moratorium on service disconnects, but to announce a storm damage provisiontarget date of $1.75 million per month. If Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision balance exceeds $15 million,May 3, 2021. In March 2021 the collectionAPSC will issue an order either confirming the lifting of the storm damage provision ceases until such time thatmoratorium on service disconnects or extending the accumulated storm damage provision becomes less than $10 million.moratorium. As of April 30, 2016,December 31, 2020, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance was less than $10Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of $10.5 million therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billingfor costs associated with the monthly storm damage provision effective with June 2016 bills. As of September 30, 2016, however, Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance again exceeded $15 million. Accordingly the storm damage provision was reset to zero beginning with November 2016 bills. As of July 31, 2017, the balance in Entergy Mississippi’s accumulated storm damage provision was again less than $10 million, therefore Entergy Mississippi resumed billing the monthly storm damage provision effective with September 2017 bills.COVID-19 pandemic.


Federal Regulation


See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation– Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.



Nuclear Matters


Entergy Arkansas owns and, through an affiliate, operates the ANO 1 and ANO 2 nuclear power plants. Entergy Arkansas is, therefore, subject to the risks related to owning and operating nuclear plants. These include risks related to: the use, storage, and handling and disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive materials; the substantial financial requirements, both for capital investments and operational needs, to position Entergy’s nuclear fleet to meet its operational goals; the performance and capacity factors of these nuclear plants including the financial requirements to address emerging issues like stress corrosion cracking of certain materials within the plant systems; regulatory requirements and potential future regulatory changes, including changes affecting the regulations governing nuclear plant ownership, operations, license amendments, and decommissioning; the availability of interim or permanent sites for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, including the fees charged for such disposal; the sufficiency of nuclear decommissioning trust fund assets and earnings to complete decommissioning of each site when required; and limitations on the amounts and types of insurance commercially available for losses in connection with nuclear plant operations and catastrophic events such as a nuclear accident. In the event of an unanticipated early shutdown of either ANO 1 or ANO 2, Entergy Arkansas may be required to
365
326

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



file with the APSC a rate mechanism to provide additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning. ANO 1’s operating license expires in 2034 and ANO 2’s operating license expires in 2038.
Nuclear Matters

See the “Nuclear Matters” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of nuclear matters.

Environmental Risks


Entergy Mississippi’sArkansas’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.  Management believes that Entergy MississippiArkansas is in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted in “Regulation of Entergy’s Business - Environmental Regulation” in Part I, Item 1.  Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance costs cannot be precisely estimated.


Critical Accounting Estimates


The preparation of Entergy Mississippi’sArkansas’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to apply appropriate accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that can have a significant effect on reported financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.  Management has identified the following accounting policies and estimates as critical because they are based on assumptions and measurements that involve a high degree of uncertainty, and there is the potential for future changes in the assumptions and measurements that could produce estimates that would have a material impacteffect on the presentation of Entergy Mississippi’sArkansas’s financial position or results of operations.


In the first quarter 2019, Entergy Arkansas recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liabilities for ANO 1 and ANO 2 as a result of a revised decommissioning cost study. The revised estimates resulted in a $126.2 million increase in its decommissioning cost liabilities, along with corresponding increases in the related asset retirement cost assets that will be depreciated over the remaining lives of the units.

Nuclear Decommissioning Costs

See “Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates inherent in accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs.

Utility Regulatory Accounting


See “Utility Regulatory Accounting” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of accounting for the effects of rate regulation.

Unbilled Revenue

See “Unbilled Revenue” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the unbilled revenue amounts.


Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments


See “Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the impairment of long-lived assets.


Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions


See “Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.


327

Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits


Entergy Mississippi’sArkansas’s qualified pension and other postretirement reported costs, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are impacted by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms.   See the “Qualified

366

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.  Because of the complexity of these calculations, the long-term nature of these obligations, and the importance of the assumptions utilized, Entergy’s estimate of these costs is a critical accounting estimate.


Cost SensitivityCosts and Sensitivities


The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension cost and qualified projected benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Qualified Pension CostImpact on 2020 Qualified Projected Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$2,406$46,791
Rate of return on plan assets(0.25%)$2,914$—
Rate of increase in compensation0.25%$1,838$8,922
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Qualified Pension Cost Impact on 2017 Projected Qualified Benefit Obligation
    Increase/(Decrease)  
Discount rate (0.25%) $874 
$13,479
Rate of return on plan assets (0.25%) $867 
$—
Rate of increase in compensation 0.25% $381 
$1,848


The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Postretirement Benefit CostImpact on 2020 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$174$6,576
Health care cost trend0.25%$225$4,516
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Postretirement Benefit Cost Impact on 2017 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
    Increase/(Decrease)  
Discount rate (0.25%) $184 $2,561
Health care cost trend 0.25% $296 $2,024


Each fluctuation above assumes that the other components of the calculation are held constant.


Costs and FundingEmployer Contributions


Total qualified pension cost for Entergy MississippiArkansas in 20172020 was $8.5 million.$81.7 million, including $21.1 million in settlement costs.  Entergy MississippiArkansas anticipates 20182021 qualified pension cost to be $10.8 million. In 2016, Entergy Mississippi refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of qualified pension costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified pension costs by $3.8$61.6 million. Entergy MississippiArkansas contributed $19.1$60 million to its qualified pension plans in 20172020 and estimates 2018 pension contributions will be approximately $14.9$66.6 million in 2021, although the 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021.


Total other postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income for Entergy MississippiArkansas in 20172020 was $1$10.1 million.  Entergy MississippiArkansas expects 20182021 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income of approximately $1.5$11.1 million.  In 2016, Entergy Mississippi refinedArkansas contributed $2.2 million to its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of other postretirement costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified other postretirement costs by $770 thousand. In 2017, Entergy Mississippi’s contributions (that is, contributions to the external trusts plus claims payments) were offset by trust claims reimbursements, resultingplans in a net reimbursement of $2 thousand. Entergy Mississippi2020 and estimates that 20182021 contributions will be approximately $110$517 thousand.



367
328

Entergy Mississippi, Inc.Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Other Contingencies
Federal Healthcare Legislation

See “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits -Federal Healthcare LegislationContingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of Federal Healthcare Legislation.

Other Contingencies

See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.


New Accounting Pronouncements


See “New Accounting Pronouncements” section of Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.

329


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




To the shareholdersmember and Board of Directors of
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries


Opinion on the Financial Statements


We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Entergy Mississippi, Inc.Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows and changes in commonmember’s equity (pages 370332 through 374336 and applicable items in pages 5551 through 230)238), for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


Basis for Opinion


These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.


We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.


Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



Critical Audit Matter

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Rate and Regulatory Matters —Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries — Refer to Note 2 to the financial statements

Critical Audit Matter Description

The Company is subject to rate regulation by the Arkansas Public Service Commission (the “APSC”), which has jurisdiction with respect to the rates of electric companies in Arkansas, and to wholesale rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Management has determined it meets the requirements under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America to prepare its financial statements applying the specialized rules to account for the effects of cost-based rate regulation. Accounting for the economics of rate regulation impacts multiple financial statement line items and disclosures, such as property, plant, and equipment;
330

regulatory assets and liabilities; income taxes; operating revenues; operation and maintenance expense; and depreciation and amortization expense.

The Company’s rates are subject to regulatory rate-setting processes and annual earnings oversight. Because the APSC and the FERC set the rates the Company is allowed to charge customers based on allowable costs, including a reasonable return on equity, the Company applies accounting standards that require the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation, including the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities. The Company assesses whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in applicable regulatory and political environments. While the Company has indicated it expects to recover costs from customers through regulated rates, there is a risk that the APSC and the FERC will not approve: (1) full recovery of the costs of providing utility service, or (2) full recovery of amounts invested in the utility business and a reasonable return on that investment.

We identified the impact of rate regulation as a critical audit matter due to the significant judgments made by management to support its assertions about impacted account balances and disclosures and the high degree of subjectivity involved in assessing the impact of future regulatory orders on the financial statements. Management judgments include assessing the likelihood of recovery in future rates of incurred costs, including costs related to the Opportunity Sales Proceeding and refunds to customers. Auditing management’s judgments regarding the outcome of future decisions by the APSC and the FERC, involved especially subjective judgment and specialized knowledge of accounting for rate regulation and the rate setting process.

How the Critical Audit Matter Was Addressed in the Audit

Our audit procedures related to the uncertainty of future decisions by the APSC and the FERC included the following, among others:

We tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the evaluation of the likelihood of (1) the recovery in future rates of costs incurred as property, plant, and equipment and deferred as regulatory assets, and (2) a refund or a future reduction in rates that should be reported as regulatory liabilities. We also tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the initial recognition of amounts as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets or liabilities; and the monitoring and evaluation of regulatory developments that may affect the likelihood of recovering costs in future rates or of a future reduction in rates.
We evaluated the Company’s disclosures related to the impacts of rate regulation, including the balances recorded and regulatory developments.
We read relevant regulatory orders issued by the APSC and the FERC for the Company and other public utilities, regulatory statutes, interpretations, procedural memorandums, filings made by intervenors, and other publicly available information to assess the likelihood of recovery in future rates or of a future reduction in rates based on precedents of the APSC’s and the FERC’s treatment of similar costs under similar circumstances. We evaluated the external information and compared to management’s recorded regulatory asset and liability balances for completeness.
For regulatory matters in process, including the Opportunity Sales Proceeding, we inspected the Company’s filings with the APSC and the FERC, including the annual formula rate plan filing, and considered the filings with the APSC and the FERC by intervenors that may impact the Company’s future rates, for any evidence that might contradict management’s assertions.
We obtained an analysis from management and support from internal and external legal counsel, as appropriate, regarding probability of recovery for regulatory assets or refund or future reduction in rates for regulatory liabilities not yet addressed in a regulatory order, including the Opportunity Sales Proceeding, to assess management’s assertion that amounts are probable of recovery or a future reduction in rates.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 20182021



We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2001.



331
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
INCOME STATEMENTS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
       
OPERATING REVENUES      
Electric 
$1,198,229
 
$1,094,649
 
$1,396,985
       
OPERATING EXPENSES  
  
  
Operation and Maintenance:  
  
  
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale 185,816
 95,090
 291,666
Purchased power 328,463
 297,902
 389,950
Other operation and maintenance 243,480
 250,443
 261,255
Taxes other than income taxes 95,051
 94,482
 94,152
Depreciation and amortization 143,479
 136,214
 129,029
Other regulatory charges (credits) - net (19,134) (3,721) 19,027
TOTAL 977,155
 870,410
 1,185,079
       
OPERATING INCOME 221,074
 224,239
 211,906
       
OTHER INCOME  
  
  
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 9,667
 5,801
 3,095
Interest and investment income 85
 656
 195
Miscellaneous - net 510
 (3,531) (4,418)
TOTAL 10,262
 2,926
 (1,128)
       
INTEREST EXPENSE  
  
  
Interest expense 51,260
 57,114
 57,842
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction (3,875) (2,987) (1,644)
TOTAL 47,385
 54,127
 56,198
       
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES 183,951
 173,038
 154,580
       
Income taxes 73,919
 63,854
 61,872
       
NET INCOME 110,032
 109,184
 92,708
    

  
Preferred dividend requirements and other 953
 2,443
 2,828
       
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK 
$109,079
 
$106,741
 
$89,880
       
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  




ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING REVENUES   
Electric$2,084,494 $2,259,594 $2,060,643 
OPERATING EXPENSES   
Operation and Maintenance:   
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale271,896 458,907 517,245 
Purchased power187,690 204,640 252,390 
Nuclear refueling outage expenses55,737 68,769 77,915 
Other operation and maintenance669,518 720,217 724,831 
Decommissioning73,319 68,030 60,420 
Taxes other than income taxes121,057 115,869 104,771 
Depreciation and amortization338,029 307,351 292,649 
Other regulatory credits - net(35,310)(11,186)(14,807)
TOTAL1,681,936 1,932,597 2,015,414 
OPERATING INCOME402,558 326,997 45,229 
OTHER INCOME   
Allowance for equity funds used during construction15,019 15,499 16,557 
Interest and investment income35,579 26,020 25,406 
Miscellaneous - net(21,908)(18,566)(14,874)
TOTAL28,690 22,953 27,089 
INTEREST EXPENSE   
Interest expense144,834 140,087 124,459 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction(6,595)(6,332)(7,781)
TOTAL138,239 133,755 116,678 
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES293,009 216,195 (44,360)
Income taxes47,777 (46,769)(297,067)
NET INCOME245,232 262,964 252,707 
Preferred dividend requirements1,249 
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON EQUITY$245,232 $262,964 $251,458 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   


332
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
       
OPERATING ACTIVITIES      
Net income 
$110,032
 
$109,184
 
$92,708
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:      
Depreciation and amortization 143,479
 136,214
 129,029
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued 84,816
 60,986
 18,673
Changes in assets and liabilities:  
  
  
Receivables (29,528) (28,819) 50,199
Fuel inventory 5,266
 401
 (8,537)
Accounts payable 3,595
 33,733
 (26,682)
Taxes accrued 18,803
 20,579
 (10,104)
Interest accrued 1,248
 822
 (2,341)
Deferred fuel costs (25,487) (114,711) 105,560
Other working capital accounts 5,115
 (5,222) (663)
Provisions for estimated losses (9,676) 6,378
 (2,080)
Other regulatory assets (17,412) (3,626) 39,582
Other regulatory liabilities 405,395
 (2,986) 9,172
     Deferred tax rate change recognized as regulatory liability/asset (452,429) 
 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities (8,055) (10,648) (14,939)
Other assets and liabilities (8,577) 9,995
 (7,298)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities 226,585
 212,280
 372,279
INVESTING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Construction expenditures (427,616) (310,356) (235,894)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 9,667
 5,801
 3,095
Insurance proceeds 
 
 12,932
Changes in money pool receivable - net 8,962
 15,335
 (25,286)
Payment for purchase of assets (6,958) 
 
Other (1,281) (224) 26
Net cash flow used in investing activities (417,226) (289,444) (245,127)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt 148,185
 623,812
 
Retirement of long-term debt 
 (562,400) 
Redemption of preferred stock 
 (30,000) 
Dividends paid:  
  
  
Common stock (26,000) (24,000) (40,000)
Preferred stock (953) (2,755) (2,828)
Other (1,329) 3,736
 (352)
Net cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities 119,903
 8,393
 (43,180)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (70,738) (68,771) 83,972
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 76,834
 145,605
 61,633
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period 
$6,096
 
$76,834
 
$145,605
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:    
  
Cash paid (received) during the period for:  
  
  
Interest - net of amount capitalized 
$47,631
 
$53,693
 
$57,576
Income taxes 
($25,043) 
($12,487) 
$61,333
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  



ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES   
Net income$245,232 $262,964 $252,707 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:
Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning, including nuclear fuel amortization490,457 465,299 443,698 
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued87,019 94,368 129,524 
Changes in assets and liabilities:   
Receivables(24,507)(58,077)4,294 
Fuel inventory(10,066)(10,597)6,210 
Accounts payable(22,773)3,059 (126,405)
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued24,942 9,568 
Interest accrued(43)3,895 678 
Deferred fuel costs(1,186)72,560 43,869 
Other working capital accounts(11,061)18,783 (30,118)
Provisions for estimated losses6,289 14,901 14,250 
Other regulatory assets(165,534)(131,873)32,460 
Other regulatory liabilities106,878 39,293 (341,682)
Pension and other postretirement liabilities42,576 5,831 (40,157)
Other assets and liabilities(83,469)(127,582)(187,071)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities659,818 677,766 211,825 
INVESTING ACTIVITIES   
Construction expenditures(775,595)(641,525)(660,044)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction15,019 15,306 17,013 
Nuclear fuel purchases(100,678)(54,344)(99,417)
Proceeds from sale of nuclear fuel30,638 22,782 54,810 
Proceeds from nuclear decommissioning trust fund sales321,360 317,377 300,801 
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust funds(336,392)(336,519)(315,163)
Payment for purchase of assets(5,988)
Changes in money pool receivable - net(3,110)
Litigation proceeds for reimbursement of spent nuclear fuel storage costs55,001 
Insurance proceeds14,790 
Other4,036 630 (1,517)
Net cash flow used in investing activities(795,709)(676,293)(688,727)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES   
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt1,071,121 834,038 958,434 
Retirement of long-term debt(632,175)(548,952)(690,488)
Capital contribution from parent350,000 
Redemption of preferred stock(32,660)
Change in money pool payable - net(21,634)(161,104)16,601 
Changes in short-term borrowings - net(49,974)
Distributions/dividends paid:   
Common equity(95,000)(115,000)(91,751)
Preferred stock(1,606)
Other2,188 (7,055)12,249 
Net cash flow provided by financing activities324,500 1,927 470,805 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents188,609 3,400 (6,097)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period3,519 119 6,216 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$192,128 $3,519 $119 
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:  
Cash paid (received) during the period for:   
Interest - net of amount capitalized$140,735 $131,134 $118,731 
Income taxes($21,971)($33,989)$44,393 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

333
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
   
  December 31,
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
     
CURRENT ASSETS    
Cash and cash equivalents:    
Cash 
$1,607
 
$16
Temporary cash investments 4,489
 76,818
Total cash and cash equivalents 6,096
 76,834
Accounts receivable:  
  
Customer 72,039
 51,218
Allowance for doubtful accounts (574) (549)
Associated companies 45,081
 45,973
Other 9,738
 12,006
Accrued unbilled revenues 54,256
 51,327
Total accounts receivable 180,540
 159,975
Deferred fuel costs 32,444
 6,957
Fuel inventory - at average cost 45,606
 50,872
Materials and supplies - at average cost 42,571
 41,146
Prepayments and other 7,041
 8,873
TOTAL 314,298
 344,657
     
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
  
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation) 4,592
 4,608
Escrow accounts 31,969
 31,783
TOTAL 36,561
 36,391
     
UTILITY PLANT  
  
Electric 4,660,297
 4,321,214
Property under capital lease 125
 1,590
Construction work in progress 149,367
 118,182
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT 4,809,789
 4,440,986
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization 1,681,306
 1,602,711
UTILITY PLANT - NET 3,128,483
 2,838,275
     
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
  
Regulatory assets:  
  
Regulatory asset for income taxes - net 
 38,284
Other regulatory assets 397,909
 342,213
Other 2,124
 2,320
TOTAL 400,033
 382,817
     
TOTAL ASSETS 
$3,879,375
 
$3,602,140
     
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  



ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT ASSETS  
Cash and cash equivalents:  
Cash$24,108 $3,519 
Temporary cash investments168,020 
Total cash and cash equivalents192,128 3,519 
Securitization recovery trust account4,036 
Accounts receivable:  
Customer183,719 117,679 
Allowance for doubtful accounts(18,334)(1,169)
Associated companies34,216 29,178 
Other35,845 117,653 
Accrued unbilled revenues109,000 108,489 
Total accounts receivable344,446 371,830 
Fuel inventory - at average cost43,811 33,745 
Materials and supplies - at average cost237,640 211,320 
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs32,692 48,875 
Prepayments and other13,296 14,096 
TOTAL864,013 687,421 
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
Decommissioning trust funds1,273,921 1,101,283 
Other341 345 
TOTAL1,274,262 1,101,628 
UTILITY PLANT  
Electric12,905,322 12,293,483 
Construction work in progress234,213 197,775 
Nuclear fuel163,044 195,547 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT13,302,579 12,686,805 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization5,255,355 5,019,826 
UTILITY PLANT - NET8,047,224 7,666,979 
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
Regulatory assets:  
Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $0 as of December 31, 2020 and $1,706 as of December 31, 2019)1,832,384 1,666,850 
Deferred fuel costs68,220 67,690 
Other14,028 15,065 
TOTAL1,914,632 1,749,605 
TOTAL ASSETS$12,100,131 $11,205,633 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

334

ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIESENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETSCONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITYLIABILITIES AND EQUITYLIABILITIES AND EQUITY
  
 December 31, December 31,
 2017 2016 20202019
 (In Thousands) (In Thousands)
    
CURRENT LIABILITIES    CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Currently maturing long-term debtCurrently maturing long-term debt$485,000 $0 
Accounts payable:  
  
Accounts payable:  
Associated companies 
$55,689
 
$43,647
Associated companies59,448 111,785 
Other 77,326
 80,227
Other208,591 202,201 
Customer deposits 83,654
 84,112
Customer deposits98,506 101,411 
Taxes accrued 82,843
 64,040
Taxes accrued81,837 81,831 
Interest accrued 22,901
 21,653
Interest accrued22,745 22,788 
Deferred fuel costsDeferred fuel costs53,065 53,721 
Current portion of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxesCurrent portion of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes9,296 
Other 12,785
 9,554
Other40,628 38,760 
TOTAL 335,198
 303,233
TOTAL1,049,820 621,793 
    
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
  
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued 488,806
 861,331
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued1,286,123 1,183,126 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits 8,867
 8,667
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits30,500 31,701 
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net 411,011
 
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net467,031 478,174 
Asset retirement cost liabilities 9,219
 8,722
Other regulatory liabilitiesOther regulatory liabilities686,872 559,555 
DecommissioningDecommissioning1,314,160 1,242,616 
Accumulated provisions 44,764
 54,440
Accumulated provisions70,169 63,880 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities 101,498
 109,551
Pension and other postretirement liabilities361,682 319,075 
Long-term debt 1,270,122
 1,120,916
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $0 as of December 31, 2020 and $6,772 as of December 31, 2019)Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $0 as of December 31, 2020 and $6,772 as of December 31, 2019)3,482,507 3,517,208 
Other 11,639
 20,108
Other75,098 62,568 
TOTAL 2,345,926
 2,183,735
TOTAL7,774,142 7,457,903 
    
Commitments and Contingencies 

 

Commitments and Contingencies00
    
Preferred stock without sinking fund 20,381
 20,381
    
COMMON EQUITY  
  
Common stock, no par value, authorized 12,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding 8,666,357 shares in 2017 and 2016 199,326
 199,326
Capital stock expense and other 167
 167
Retained earnings 978,377
 895,298
EQUITYEQUITY  
Member's equityMember's equity3,276,169 3,125,937 
TOTAL 1,177,870
 1,094,791
TOTAL3,276,169 3,125,937 
    
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 
$3,879,375
 
$3,602,140
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY$12,100,131 $11,205,633 
    
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
See Notes to Financial Statements.  



335
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
    
 Common Equity  
 Common Stock Capital Stock Expense and Other Retained Earnings Total
 (In Thousands)
        
Balance at December 31, 2014
$199,326
 
($690) 
$763,534
 
$962,170
Net income
 
 92,708
 92,708
Common stock dividends
 
 (40,000) (40,000)
Preferred stock dividends
 
 (2,828) (2,828)
Balance at December 31, 2015
$199,326
 
($690) 
$813,414
 
$1,012,050
Net income
 
 109,184
 109,184
Common stock dividends
 
 (24,000) (24,000)
Preferred stock dividends
 
 (2,443) (2,443)
Preferred stock redemption
 857
 (857) 
Balance at December 31, 2016
$199,326
 
$167
 
$895,298
 
$1,094,791
Net income
 
 110,032
 110,032
Common stock dividends
 
 (26,000) (26,000)
Preferred stock dividends
 
 (953) (953)
Balance at December 31, 2017
$199,326
 
$167
 
$978,377
 
$1,177,870
        
See Notes to Financial Statements. 
  
  
  




ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN MEMBER'S EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
Member's Equity
(In Thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2017$2,376,754 
Net income252,707 
Capital contributions from parent350,000 
Common equity distributions(91,751)
Non-cash contribution from parent94,335 
Preferred stock dividends(1,249)
Other2,307 
Balance at December 31, 2018$2,983,103 
Net income262,964 
Common equity distributions(115,000)
Other(5,130)
Balance at December 31, 2019$3,125,937 
Net income245,232 
Common equity distributions(95,000)
Balance at December 31, 2020$3,276,169 
See Notes to Financial Statements.

336
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
          
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (In Thousands)
          
Operating revenues
$1,198,229
 
$1,094,649
 
$1,396,985
 
$1,524,193
 
$1,334,540
Net income
$110,032
 
$109,184
 
$92,708
 
$74,821
 
$82,159
Total assets
$3,879,375
 
$3,602,140
 
$3,477,407
 
$3,358,625
 
$3,234,875
Long-term obligations (a)
$1,290,503
 
$1,141,924
 
$972,058
 
$1,097,182
 
$1,092,786
          
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt), non-current capital lease obligations, and preferred stock without sinking fund.
          
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (Dollars In Millions)
          
Electric Operating Revenues: 
  
  
  
  
Residential
$502
 
$459
 
$565
 
$585
 
$527
Commercial423
 374
 465
 481
 432
Industrial159
 134
 164
 175
 156
Governmental41
 38
 47
 47
 42
Total retail1,125
 1,005
 1,241
 1,288
 1,157
Sales for resale: 
  
  
  
  
Associated companies
 1
 75
 153
 92
Non-associated companies18
 30
 10
 14
 24
Other55
 59
 71
 69
 62
Total
$1,198
 
$1,095
 
$1,397
 
$1,524
 
$1,335
          
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh):   
  
  
  
Residential5,308
 5,617
 5,661
 5,672
 5,629
Commercial4,783
 4,894
 4,913
 4,821
 4,815
Industrial2,536
 2,493
 2,283
 2,297
 2,265
Governmental421
 439
 433
 414
 409
Total retail13,048
 13,443
 13,290
 13,204
 13,118
Sales for resale: 
  
  
  
  
Associated companies
 
 1,419
 2,657
 1,543
Non-associated companies857
 1,021
 261
 193
 304
Total13,905
 14,464
 14,970
 16,054
 14,965




ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
 20202019201820172016
 (In Thousands)
Operating revenues$2,084,494 $2,259,594 $2,060,643 $2,139,919 $2,086,608 
Net income$245,232 $262,964 $252,707 $139,844 $167,212 
Total assets$12,100,131 $11,205,633 $10,401,596 $10,134,029 $9,606,117 
Long-term obligations (a)$3,482,507 $3,517,208 $3,225,759 $2,983,749 $2,746,435 
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt) and preferred stock without sinking fund.
 20202019201820172016
 (Dollars In Millions)
Electric Operating Revenues:     
Residential$841 $795 $807 $768 $789 
Commercial466 539 426 495 495 
Industrial462 521 434 472 446 
Governmental18 21 17 19 18 
Total billed retail1,787 1,876 1,684 1,754 1,748 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies105 118 104 128 49 
Non-associated companies68 140 145 121 118 
Other124 126 128 137 172 
Total$2,084 $2,260 $2,061 $2,140 $2,087 
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh):    
Residential7,584 7,996 8,248 7,298 7,618 
Commercial5,356 5,822 5,967 5,825 5,988 
Industrial7,586 7,759 8,071 7,528 6,795 
Governmental223 241 239 237 237 
Total retail20,749 21,818 22,525 20,888 20,638 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies1,659 2,180 1,773 1,782 1,609 
Non-associated companies4,198 7,206 6,447 6,549 7,115 
Total26,606 31,204 30,745 29,219 29,362 

337


ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS,LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES


MANAGEMENTSMANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS


Internal RestructuringThe COVID-19 Pandemic


See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta

In August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $2.0 billion, including approximately $1.67 billion in capital costs and approximately $330 million in non-capital costs. This estimate includes all costs to restore power and repair or replace the damages from the hurricanes, except for the cost to repair or replace damage incurred to an Entergy Louisiana transmission line in southeast Louisiana, and the amount of that cost could be significant. The restoration plan for this transmission line and the related cost estimate is still being evaluated. Also, Entergy Louisiana’s revenues were adversely affected in 2020, primarily due to power outages resulting from the hurricanes. Entergy Louisiana is considering all reasonable avenues to recover storm-related costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta, including securitization. Storm cost recovery or financing will be subject to review by applicable regulatory authorities.

Entergy Louisiana recorded accounts payable and corresponding construction work in progress and regulatory assets for the estimated costs incurred that were necessary to return customers to service. Entergy Louisiana recorded the regulatory assets in accordance with its accounting policies and based on the historic treatment of such costs in its service area because management believes that recovery through some form of regulatory mechanism is probable. There are well established mechanisms and precedent for addressing these catastrophic events and providing for recovery of prudently incurred storm costs in accordance with applicable regulatory and legal principles. Because Entergy Louisiana has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

In October 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments to facilitate issuance of shorter-term bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta. Subsequently, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion seeking approval to exclude from the derivation of Entergy Louisiana’s capital structure and cost rate of debt for ratemaking purposes, including the allowance for funds used during construction, shorter-term debt up to $1.1 billion issued by Entergy Louisiana to fund costs associated with Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta costs on an interim basis. In November 2020 the LPSC issued an order approving the joint motion, and Entergy Louisiana issued $1.1 billion of 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023. Also in November 2020, Entergy Louisiana drew $257 million from its funded storm reserves.

In December 2020, Entergy Louisiana provided the LPSC with notification that it intends to initiate a storm cost recovery proceeding in the near future, which will permit the LPSC to retain any outside consultants and counsel needed to review the storm cost recovery application. In February 2021 the LPSC voted to retain outside counsel and consultants to assist in the review of Entergy Louisiana’s upcoming storm cost recovery application, which is expected to be filed in March 2021.
338

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

February 2021 Winter Storms

See the “February 2021 Winter Storms” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the February 2021 winter storms. Entergy Louisiana’s preliminary estimate for the cost of mobilizing crews and restoring power is approximately $50 million to $60 million. Natural gas purchases for Entergy Louisiana for February 1st through 25th, 2021 are approximately $190 million compared to natural gas purchases for February 2020 of $39 million.

Results of Operations

2020 Compared to 2019

Net Income

Net income increased $390.8 million primarily due to the $382.8 million reduction in deferred income tax expense related to the basis of assets contributed in the 2015 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana business combination as a result of the resolution of the 2014-2015 IRS audit in the fourth quarter 2020 and the $58 million reduction in income tax expense resulting from an IRS settlement in the first quarter 2020 related to the uncertain tax position regarding the Hurricane Isaac Louisiana Act 55 financing, which also resulted in a $29 million ($21 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge to reflect Entergy Louisiana’s agreement to share the savings with customers. Also contributing to the increase were higher retail electric price, lower other operation and maintenance expenses, and a lower effective income tax rate. The increase was partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses, lower volume/weather, lower other income, higher interest expense, and higher taxes other than income taxes. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the tax audit resolution and the tax settlement.

Operating Revenues

Following is an analysis of the change in operating revenues comparing 2020 to 2019:
Amount
(In Millions)
2019 operating revenues$4,285.2 
Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income(330.3)
Volume/weather(68.8)
Return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers7.5 
Retail electric price176.3 
2020 operating revenues$4,069.9

Entergy Louisiana’s results include revenues from rate mechanisms designed to recover fuel, purchased power, and other costs such that the revenues and expenses associated with these items generally offset and do not affect net income. “Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income” includes the revenue variance associated with these items.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to decreased commercial and industrial usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the effects of Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta on sales, and the effect of less favorable weather on residential sales, partially offset by increased residential usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decrease in industrial usage is partially offset by an increase in demand from expansion projects, primarily in the transportation and chemicals industries. See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the
339

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

COVID-19 pandemic. See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for discussion of the storms.

The return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers resulted from the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes through changes in the formula rate plan effective May 2018. In 2020, $31.1 million was returned to customers as compared to $38.6 million in 2019. There was no effect on net income as the reduction in operating revenues was offset by a reduction in income tax expense. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to an increase in formula rate plan revenues effective June 2019 due to the inclusion of the first-year revenue requirement for the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and effective April 2020 due to the inclusion of the first-year revenue requirement for the Lake Charles Power Station and increases in formula rate plan revenues effective September 2019 and September 2020. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the formula rate plan proceedings.

Other Income Statement Variances

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $10.2 million in nuclear generation expenses primarily due to a lower scope of work performed in 2020 as compared to 2019, in part as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;
a decrease of $9.5 million primarily due to contract costs in 2019 related to initiatives to explore new customer products and services;
a decrease of $6.8 million in loss provisions;
higher nuclear insurance refunds of $5.9 million;
a decrease of $5.8 million in energy efficiency costs due to the timing of recovery from customers; and
a decrease of $4.3 million in non-nuclear generation expenses primarily due to a lower scope of work performed during plant outages in 2020 as compared to the same period in 2019, partially offset by increases resulting from the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and the Lake Charles Power Station being placed in service.

The decrease was partially offset by:

an increase of $4.1 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to an increase in net periodic pension and other postretirement benefits costs as a result of a decrease in the discount rate used to value the benefit liabilities. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for further discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit costs; and
several individually insignificant items.

Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to increases in ad valorem taxes resulting from higher property assessments.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station), which was placed into service in May 2019 and the Lake Charles Power Station, which was placed in service in March 2020.

Other regulatory charges (credits) include regulatory charges of $32.6 million recorded in the fourth quarter 2020 due to a settlement with the IRS related to the uncertain tax position regarding Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita Louisiana Act 55 financing because the savings will be shared with customers and $29 million recorded in the first quarter 2020 due to a settlement with the IRS related to the uncertain tax position regarding Hurricane Isaac Louisiana Act 55 financing because the savings will be shared with customers. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the settlements and savings obligations.
340

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Other income decreased primarily due to:

a decrease in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2019, including the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and the Lake Charles Power Station projects; and
changes in decommissioning trust fund activity.

Interest expense increased primarily due to:

the issuances of $300 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds and $350 million of 2.90% Series mortgage bonds, each in March 2020;
the issuance of $525 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds in March 2019; and
a decrease in the allowance for borrowed funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2019, including the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) and Lake Charles Power Station projects.

The effective income tax rates were (54.6%) for 2020 and 15% for 2019. The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of 21% for 2020 was primarily due to completion of the 2014-2015 IRS audit effectively settling the tax positions for those years. The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of 21% for 2019 was primarily due to the amortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. See Notes 2 and 3 to the financial statements for a discussion of the effects and regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rates of 21% to the effective income tax rates.

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Entergy Louisiana’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of results of operations for 2019 compared to 2018.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018 were as follows:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period$2,006 $43,364 $35,907 
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities1,072,986 1,236,002 1,395,204 
Investing activities(1,944,671)(1,653,634)(1,878,208)
Financing activities1,597,699 376,274 490,461 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents726,014 (41,358)7,457 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$728,020 $2,006 $43,364 

341

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

2020 Compared to 2019

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $163 million in 2020 primarily due to:

an increase of $186.1 million in storm spending in 2020, primarily due to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration efforts. See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for discussion of storm restoration efforts;
lower collections of receivables from customers, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs; and
an increase of $21.5 million in interest paid.

The decrease was partially offset by:

a decrease in $43.7 million in spending on nuclear refueling outages;
the timing of payments to vendors; and
income tax refunds of $14.7 million in 2020 compared to $15.3 million in income tax payments in 2019. Entergy Louisiana had income tax refunds in 2020 and income tax payments in 2019 in accordance with an intercompany tax allocation agreement. Entergy Louisiana had income tax refunds in 2020 as a result of a refund of an overpayment on a prior year state income tax return.

Investing Activities

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $291 million in 2020 primarily due to:

an increase of $709.7 million in storm spending 2020, primarily due to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration efforts, See “Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta” above for discussion of storm restoration efforts;
the purchase of Washington Parish Energy Center in November 2020 for approximately $222 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Washington Parish Energy Center purchase;
an increase of $16.7 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to investment in the reliability and infrastructure of Entergy Louisiana’s distribution system, including increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure; and
money pool activity.

The increase was partially offset by:

an increase of $302.2 million in net receipts from storm reserve escrow accounts;
a decrease of $207.8 million in non-nuclear generation construction expenditures due to higher spending in 2019 on the Lake Charles Power Station and J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) projects;
a decrease of $133.1 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a lower scope of work performed on various projects in 2020 as compared to 2019;
a decrease of $89.5 million in nuclear construction expenditures primarily due to a lower scope of work performed on various nuclear projects in 2020 as compared to 2019; and
a decrease of $26.1 million as a result of fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements in the Utility business, material, and service deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle.

Increases in Entergy Louisiana’s receivable from the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Louisiana’s receivable from the money pool increased by $13.4 million in 2020 compared to decreasing by $46.8
342

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

million in 2019. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.

Financing Activities

Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $1,221.4 million in 2020 primarily due to:

the issuance of $1.1 billion of 0.62% Series mortgage bonds in November 2020;
the issuance of $350 million of 2.90% Series mortgage bonds and $300 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds, each in March 2020;
the issuance of $300 million of 2.90% Series mortgage bonds and $300 million of 1.60% Series mortgage bonds, each in November 2020; and
a decrease of $186.5 million in common equity distributions in 2020 primarily due to upcoming capital expenditures.

The increase was partially offset by:

the issuance of $525 million of 4.20% Series mortgage bonds in March 2019;
the repayment in August 2020 of $250 million of 3.95% Series mortgage bonds due October 2020;
the repayment in December 2020 of $200 million of 5.25% Series mortgage bonds due July 2016,2052;
money pool activity;
the repayment in December 2020 of $100 million of 4.70% Series mortgage bonds due June 2063; and
net repayments of long-term borrowings of $62 million in 2020 on the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities’ credit facilities.

Decreases in Entergy New OrleansLouisiana’s payable to the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Louisiana’s payable to the money pool decreased by $82.8 million in 2020 compared to increasing by $82.8 million in 2019.

See Note 5 to the financial statements for details of long-term debt.

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Cash Flow” in Item 7 of Entergy Louisiana’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2019 compared to 2018.

Capital Structure

Entergy Louisiana’s debt to capital ratio is shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital ratio for Entergy Louisiana is primarily due to the net issuances of long-term debt in 2020.
 December 31,
2020
December 31,
2019
Debt to capital54.8 %53.4 %
Effect of excluding securitization bonds0.0 %(0.1 %)
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)54.8 %53.3 %
Effect of subtracting cash(2.1 %)(0.1 %)
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)52.7 %53.2 %

343

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

(a)Calculation excludes the securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy Louisiana.

Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents.  Debt consists of short-term borrowings, finance lease obligations, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion.  Capital consists of debt and common equity.  Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents.  Entergy Louisiana uses the debt to capital ratios excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes they provide useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Louisiana’s financial condition because the securitization bonds are non-recourse to Entergy Louisiana, as more fully described in Note 5 to the financial statements. Entergy Louisiana also uses the net debt to net capital ratio excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Louisiana’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy Louisiana’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.

Entergy Louisiana seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings.  To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a distribution, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the capital structure.  To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Louisiana may issue incremental debt or reduce distributions, or both, to maintain its capital structure.  In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as financing of large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing distributions, Entergy Louisiana may receive equity contributions to maintain its capital structure.

Uses of Capital

Entergy Louisiana requires capital resources for:

construction and other capital investments;
debt maturities or retirements;
working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel and purchased power costs; and
distribution and interest payments.

Following are the amounts of Entergy Louisiana’s planned construction and other capital investments.
 202120222023
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:  
Generation$365 $460 $785 
Transmission425 340 230 
Distribution540 485 500 
Utility Support160 130 115 
Total$1,490 $1,415 $1,630 

In addition to the planned spending in the table above, Entergy Louisiana also expects to pay for $845 million of capital investments in 2021 related to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta restoration work that have been accrued as of December 31, 2020.
344

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Following are the amounts of Entergy Louisiana’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 20212022-20232024-2025After 2025Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)$557 $2,294 $1,495 $9,506 $13,852 
Operating leases (b)$13 $19 $10 $4 $46 
Finance leases (b)$4 $7 $4 $2 $17 
Purchase obligations (c)$687 $1,463 $1,472 $4,838 $8,460 

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.
(c)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Louisiana, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Vidalia purchased power agreement and the Unit Power Sales Agreement, both of which are discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements.

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, Entergy Louisiana currently expects to contribute approximately $59.9 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $15.6 million to its other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2021, although the 2021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2021. See “Critical Accounting Estimates- Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.

In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Louisiana includes specific investments such as transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to maintain reliability and improve service to customers, including advanced meters and related investments; resource planning, including potential generation and renewables projects; system improvements; investments in River Bend and Waterford 3; software and security; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital.

As a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, Entergy Louisiana pays distributions from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.

Sources of Capital

Entergy Louisiana’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
storm reserve escrow accounts;
debt or preferred membership interest issuances, including debt issuances to refund or retire currently outstanding or maturing indebtedness;
capital contributions; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.

Entergy Louisiana may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest rates are favorable.
345

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

All debt and common and preferred membership interest issuances by Entergy Louisiana require prior regulatory approval. Debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its bond indentures and other agreements. Entergy Louisiana has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.

Entergy Louisiana’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
2020201920182017
(In Thousands)
$13,426($82,826)$46,843$11,173

See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.

Entergy Louisiana has a credit facility in the amount of $350 million scheduled to expire in September 2024. The credit facility includes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against $15 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, 2020, there were no cash borrowings and no letters of credit outstanding under the credit facility. In addition, Entergy Louisiana is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO.  As of December 31, 2020, $2.2 million in letters of credit were outstanding under Entergy Louisiana’s uncommitted letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the credit facilities.

The Entergy Louisiana nuclear fuel company variable interest entities have two separate credit facilities, each in the amount of $105 million and scheduled to expire in September 2022. As of December 31, 2020, $18.9 million of loans were outstanding under the credit facility for the Entergy Louisiana River Bend nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. As of December 31, 2020, $39.3 million in loans were outstanding under the Entergy Louisiana Waterford nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facilities.

Entergy Louisiana obtained authorizations from the FERC through July 2022 for the following:

short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $450 million at any time outstanding;
long-term borrowings and security issuances; and
borrowings by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entities.

See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s short-term borrowing limits.

Hurricane Isaac

In June 2014 the LPSC voted to approve a series of orders which (i) quantified $290.8 million of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs as prudently incurred; (ii) determined $290 million as the level of storm reserves to be re-established; (iii) authorized Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) granted other requested relief associated with storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs. Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation and the Louisiana State Bond Commission. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the August 2014 issuance of bonds under Act 55 of the Louisiana Legislature.

Little Gypsy Repowering Project

In April 2007, Entergy Louisiana announced that it intended to pursue the solid fuel repowering of a 538 MW unit at its Little Gypsy plant. In March 2009 the LPSC voted in favor of a motion directing Entergy Louisiana
346

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

to temporarily suspend the repowering project and, based upon an analysis of the project’s economic viability, to make a recommendation regarding whether to proceed with the project. This action was based upon a number of factors including the recent decline in natural gas prices, as well as environmental concerns, the unknown costs of carbon legislation and changes in the capital/financial markets. In April 2009, Entergy Louisiana complied with the LPSC’s directive and recommended that the project be suspended for an extended period of time of three years or more. In May 2009 the LPSC issued an order declaring that Entergy Louisiana’s decision to place the Little Gypsy project into a longer-term suspension of three years or more is in the public interest and prudent.

In October 2009, Entergy Louisiana made a filing with the LPSC seeking permission to cancel the Little Gypsy repowering project and seeking project cost recovery over a five-year period. In June 2010 and August 2010, the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony. The LPSC staff (1) agreed that it was prudent to move the project from long-term suspension to cancellation and that the timing of the decision to suspend on a longer-term basis was not imprudent; (2) indicated that, except for $0.8 million in compensation-related costs, the costs incurred should be deemed prudent; (3) recommended recovery from customers over ten years but stated that the LPSC may want to consider 15 years; (4) allowed for recovery of carrying costs and earning a return on project costs, but at a reduced rate approximating the cost of debt, while also acknowledging that the LPSC may consider ordering no return; and (5) indicated that Entergy Louisiana should be directed to securitize project costs, if legally feasible and in the public interest. In the third quarter 2010, in accordance with accounting standards, Entergy Louisiana determined that it was probable that the Little Gypsy repowering project would be abandoned and accordingly reclassified $199.8 million of project costs from construction work in progress to a regulatory asset. A hearing on the issues, except for cost allocation among customer classes, was held before the ALJ in November 2010. In January 2011 all parties participated in a mediation on the disputed issues, resulting in a settlement of all disputed issues, including cost recovery and cost allocation. The settlement provides for Entergy Louisiana to recover $200 million as of March 31, 2011, and carrying costs on that amount on specified terms thereafter. The settlement also provides for Entergy Louisiana to recover the approved project costs by securitization. In April 2011, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the City CouncilLPSC to authorize the securitization of the investment recovery costs associated with the project and to issue a financing order by which Entergy Louisiana could accomplish such securitization. In August 2011 the LPSC issued an order approving the settlement and also issued a financing order for the securitization. See Note 5 to the financial statements for a discussion of the September 2011 issuance of the securitization bonds.

State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery

The rates that Entergy Louisiana charges for its services significantly influence its financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. Entergy Louisiana is regulated and the rates charged to its customers are determined in regulatory proceedings. A governmental agency, the LPSC, is primarily responsible for approval of the rates charged to customers.

Retail Rates - Electric

Filings with the LPSC

2017 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In June 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2017 calendar year operations. The 2017 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on equity of 8.16%, due in large part to revenue-neutral realignments to other recovery mechanisms. Without these realignments, the evaluation report produces an earned return on equity of 9.88% and a resulting base rider formula rate plan revenue increase of $4.8 million. Excluding the Tax Act credits provided for by the tax reform adjustment mechanisms, total formula rate plan revenues were further increased by a total of $98 million as a result of the evaluation report due to adjustments to the additional capacity and MISO cost recovery mechanisms of the formula rate plan, and implementation of the transmission recovery mechanism. In August 2018, Entergy Louisiana filed a supplemental formula rate plan
347

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

evaluation report to reflect changes from the 2016 test year formula rate plan proceedings, a decrease to the transmission recovery mechanism to reflect lower actual capital additions, and a decrease to evaluation period expenses to reflect the terms of a new power sales agreement. Based on the August 2018 update, Entergy Louisiana recognized a total decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $17.6 million. Results of the updated 2017 evaluation report filing were implemented with the September 2018 billing month subject to refund and review by the LPSC staff and intervenors. In accordance with the terms of the formula rate plan, in September 2018 the LPSC staff and intervenors submitted their responses to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report and supplemental compliance updates. The LPSC staff asserted objections/reservations regarding 1) Entergy Louisiana’s proposed rate adjustments associated with the return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes pursuant to the Tax Act and the treatment of accumulated deferred income taxes related to reductions of rate base; 2) Entergy Louisiana’s reservation regarding treatment of a regulatory asset related to certain special orders by the LPSC; and 3) test year expenses billed from Entergy Services to Entergy Louisiana. Intervenors also objected to Entergy Louisiana’s treatment of the regulatory asset related to certain special orders by the LPSC. A procedural schedule has not yet been established to resolve these 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.

Commercial operation at J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (formerly St. Charles Power Station) commenced in May 2019. 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 J. Wayne Leonard Power Station. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of June 2019. In June 2020, Entergy Louisiana submitted information to the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. In August 2020 discovery commenced and a procedural schedule was established with a hearing in July 2021.

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. Resulting rates were implemented in September 2019, subject to refund.

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.

Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC staff filed its report of objections/reservations in accordance with the applicable provisions of the formula rate plan. In its report the LPSC staff re-urged reservations with respect to the outstanding issues from the 2017 test year formula rate plan filing and disputed the inclusion of certain affiliate costs for test years 2017 and 2018. The LPSC staff objected to Entergy Louisiana’s proposal to combine residential rates but proposed the setting of a status conference to establish a procedural schedule to more fully address the issue. The LPSC staff also reserved its right to object to the treatment of the sale of Willow Glen reflected in the evaluation report and to the August 2019 compliance update, which was made primarily to update the capital additions reflected in the formula rate plan’s transmission recovery mechanism,
348

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

based on limited time to review it. Additionally, since the completion of certain transmission projects, the LPSC staff issued supplemental data requests addressing the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s expenditures in connection with those projects. Entergy Louisiana has responded to all such requests.

Commercial operation at Lake Charles Power Station commenced in March 2020. In March 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2018 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $108 million associated with the Lake Charles Power Station. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of April 2020.

In an effort to narrow the remaining issues in formula rate plan test years 2017 and 2018, Entergy Louisiana provided notice to the parties in October 2020 that it was withdrawing its request to combine residential rates. Entergy Louisiana noted that the withdrawal is without prejudice to Entergy Louisiana’s right to seek to combine residential rates in a future proceeding.

2019 Formula Rate Plan Filing

In May 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2019 calendar year operations. The 2019 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 9.66%. As such, no change to base rider formula rate plan revenue is required. Although base rider formula rate plan revenue will not change as a result of this filing, overall formula rate plan revenues will increase by approximately $103 million. This outcome is driven by the removal of prior year credits associated with the sale of the Willow Glen Power Station and an increase in the transmission recovery mechanism. Also contributing to the overall change is an increase in legacy formula rate plan revenue requirements driven by legacy Entergy Louisiana capacity cost true-ups and higher annualized legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenues due to higher billing determinants, offset by reductions in MISO cost recovery mechanism and tax reform adjustment mechanism revenue requirements. In August 2020 the LPSC staff submitted a list of items for which it needs additional information to confirm the accuracy and compliance of the 2019 test year evaluation report. The LPSC staff objected to a proposed revenue neutral adjustment regarding a certain rider as being beyond the scope of permitted formula rate plan adjustments. Rates reflected in the May 2020 filing, with the exception of the revenue neutral rider adjustment, and as updated in an August 2020 filing, were implemented in September 2020, subject to refund. Entergy Louisiana is in the process of providing additional information and details on the May 2020 filing as requested by the LPSC staff.

In November 2020, Entergy Louisiana accepted ownership of the Washington Parish Energy Center and filed an update to its 2019 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the estimated first-year revenue requirement of $35 million associated with the Washington Parish Energy Center. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of December 2020. In January 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an update to its 2019 formula rate plan evaluation report to include the implementation of a scheduled step-up in its nuclear decommissioning revenue requirement and a true-up for under-collections of nuclear decommissioning expenses. The total rate adjustment would increase formula rate plan revenues by approximately $1.2 million. The resulting interim adjustment to rates became effective with the first billing cycle of February 2021.

Request for Extension and Modification of Formula Rate Plan

In May 2020, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its application for authority to extend its formula rate plan. In its application, Entergy Louisiana seeks to maintain a 9.8% return on equity, with a bandwidth of 60 basis points above and below the midpoint, with a first-year midpoint reset. Entergy Louisiana also seeks to maintain its existing additional capacity mechanism, tax reform adjustment mechanism, transmission recovery mechanism, and the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Entergy Louisiana also seeks to add a distribution cost recovery mechanism which operates in substantially the same manner as the transmission recovery mechanism, seeks to utilize end of period rate base to calculate cost of service, and requests a deferral of certain expenses incurred for outside of right-of-way vegetation programs. Settlement discussions are ongoing.
349

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


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 stated in the notice of proceeding, the LPSC observed an increase in capital construction-related costs incurred by Entergy Services. Discovery was issued and included efforts to seek highly detailed information on a broad range of matters unrelated to the scope of the audit. There has been no further activity in the investigation since May 2019.

Fuel and purchased power recovery

Entergy Louisiana recovers electric fuel and purchased power costs for the billing month based upon the level of such costs incurred two months prior to the billing month. Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustments include estimates for the billing month adjusted by a surcharge or credit that arises from an annual reconciliation of fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

In July 2014 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate an audit of the fuel adjustment clause filings by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, whose business was combined with Entergy Louisiana in 2015. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2010 through 2013. In January 2019, the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $900,000, 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 first quarter 2019 for the potential outcome of the audit. In August 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed direct testimony challenging the basis for the LPSC staff’s recommended disallowance and providing an alternative calculation of replacement power costs should it be determined that a disallowance is appropriate. Entergy Louisiana’s calculation would require no refund to customers.

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 consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended 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. In August 2019, Entergy Louisiana filed direct testimony challenging the basis for the LPSC staff’s recommended disallowance and providing an alternative calculation of replacement power costs should it be determined that a disallowance is appropriate. Entergy Louisiana’s calculation would require a refund to customers of approximately $4.3 million, plus interest, as compared to the LPSC staff’s recommendation of $7.3 million, plus interest. Responsive testimony was filed by the LPSC staff and intervenors in September 2019; all parties either agreed with or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s alternative calculation of replacement power costs.

In November 2019 the pending LPSC proceedings for the 2010-2013 Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana audits were consolidated to facilitate a settlement of both fuel audits. In December 2019 an unopposed settlement was reached that requires a refund to legacy Entergy Louisiana customers of approximately $2.3 million, including interest, and no refund to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers. The LPSC approved the settlement in January 2020. A one-time refund was made in February 2020.

In June 2016 the LPSC issued notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings for the period 2014 through 2015 and purchased gas adjustment clause filings for the period 2012 through 2015. In recognition of the business combination that occurred in 2015, the audit notice was issued to Entergy Louisiana and also includes a review of charges to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers prior to the business combination. The audits include a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2014 through 2015 and charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s
350

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2012 through 2015. Regarding the fuel adjustment clause filing, the LPSC staff issued a report in January 2021 that did not recommend a disallowance for the period 2014 through 2015 recoveries, but did propose various reporting requirements. Entergy Louisiana is currently reviewing the LPSC staff recommendations regarding reporting requirements. Regarding the purchased gas adjustment clause filings, the LPSC staff issued a report in February 2020 that did not recommend a disallowance for the period 2012 through 2015 recoveries. The LPSC issued an order in September 2020 accepting the LPSC staff’s report.

In May 2018 the LPSC staff provided notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause filings.  The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2016 through 2017. In February 2020 the LPSC staff issued an audit report recommending a disallowance of approximately $29 thousand Entergy Louisiana submitted a letter disputing the basis of the proposed disallowance but indicated that due to the amount at issue it would not oppose the recommended refund. The LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana submitted a joint report noting each party’s position on the substantive issues in the matter and recommending resolution of the matters. The LPSC issued an order in September 2020 resolving the matter and ordering a refund of approximately $29 thousand. In January 2021 the LPSC issued a notice closing the matter.

In March 2020 the LPSC staff provided notice of an audit of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2016 through 2019. Discovery commenced in September 2020 and is ongoing.

COVID-19 Orders

In April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. The suspension of late fees and disconnects for non-pay was extended until the first billing cycle after July 16, 2020. In January 2021, Entergy Louisiana resumed disconnections for customers in all customer classes with past-due balances that have not made payment arrangements. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Louisiana recorded a regulatory asset of $48.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Net Metering Rulemaking

In September 2019 the LPSC issued an order modifying its rules regarding net metering installations.  Among other things, the rule provides for 2-channel billing for net metering with excess energy put to the grid being compensated at the utility’s avoided cost.  However, the rule does provide that net meter installations in place as of December 31, 2019 will be subject to 1:1 net metering with excess energy put to the grid being compensated at the full retail rate for a period of 15 years (through December 31, 2034), after which those installations will be subject to 2-channel billing.  The rule also eliminates the existing limit on the cumulative number of net meter installations.


351

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Industrial and Commercial Customers

Entergy Louisiana’s large industrial and commercial customers continually explore ways to reduce their energy costs. In particular, cogeneration is an option available to a portion of Entergy Louisiana’s industrial customer base. Entergy Louisiana responds by working with industrial and commercial customers and negotiating electric service contracts to provide competitive rates that match specific customer needs and load profiles. Entergy Louisiana actively participates in economic development, customer retention, and reclamation activities to increase industrial and commercial demand, from both new and existing customers.

Federal Regulation

See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation– Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.

Nuclear Matters

Entergy Louisiana owns and, through an affiliate, operates the River Bend and Waterford 3 nuclear power plants. Entergy Louisiana is, therefore, subject to the risks related to owning and operating nuclear plants. These include risks related to: the use, storage, and handling and disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive materials; the substantial financial requirements, both for capital investments and operational needs, to position Entergy’s nuclear fleet to meet its operational goals; the performance and capacity factors of these nuclear plants; regulatory requirements and potential future regulatory changes, including changes affecting the regulations governing nuclear plant ownership, operations, license amendments, and decommissioning; the availability of interim or permanent sites for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, including the fees charged for such disposal; the sufficiency of nuclear decommissioning trust fund assets and earnings to complete decommissioning of each site when required; and limitations on the amounts and types of insurance commercially available for losses in connection with nuclear plant operations and catastrophic events such as a nuclear accident. In the event of an unanticipated early shutdown of River Bend or Waterford 3, Entergy Louisiana may be required to provide additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning. Waterford 3’s operating license expires in 2044 and River Bend’s operating license expires in 2045.

Environmental Risks

Entergy Louisiana’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters. Management believes that Entergy Louisiana is in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted in “Regulation of Entergy’s Business - Environmental Regulation” in Part I, Item 1. Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance costs cannot be precisely estimated.

Critical Accounting Estimates

The preparation of Entergy Louisiana’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to apply appropriate accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that can have a significant effect on reported financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Management has identified the following accounting policies and estimates as critical because they are based on assumptions and measurements that involve a high degree of uncertainty, and the potential for future changes in the assumptions and measurements that could produce estimates that would have a material effect on the presentation of Entergy Louisiana’s financial position or results of operations.

352

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Nuclear Decommissioning Costs

See “Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates inherent in accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs.

In the second quarter 2019, Entergy Louisiana recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liability for Waterford 3 as a result of a revised decommissioning cost study. The revised estimate resulted in a $147.5 million increase in its decommissioning cost liability, along with a corresponding increase in the related asset retirement cost asset that will be depreciated over the remaining useful life of the unit.

Utility Regulatory Accounting

See “Utility Regulatory Accounting” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of accounting for the effects of rate regulation.

Impairment of Long-lived Assets

See “Impairment of Long-lived Assets” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the impairment of long-lived assets.

Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions

See “Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.

Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits

Entergy Louisiana’s qualified pension and other postretirement reported costs, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are impacted by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms.   See the “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.  Because of the complexity of these calculations, the long-term nature of these obligations, and the importance of the assumptions utilized, Entergy’s estimate of these costs is a critical accounting estimate.

Cost Sensitivity

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension cost and qualified projected benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Qualified Pension CostImpact on 2020 Projected Qualified Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$3,053$52,030
Rate of return on plan assets(0.25%)$3,338$—
Rate of increase in compensation0.25%$2,313$11,706

353

Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Postretirement Benefit CostImpact on 2020 Accumulated postretirement Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$872$8,226
Health care cost trend0.25%$964$5,853

Each fluctuation above assumes that the other components of the calculation are held constant.

Costs and Employer Contributions

Total qualified pension cost for Entergy Louisiana in 2020 was $70.6 million, including $8.1 million in settlement costs.  Entergy Louisiana anticipates 2021 qualified pension cost to be $65.1 million.  Entergy Louisiana contributed $55.4 million to its qualified pension plans in 2020 and estimates pension contributions will be approximately $59.9 million in 2021, although the 2021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2021.

Total postretirement health care and life insurance benefit costs for Entergy Louisiana in 2020 were $5.6 million.  Entergy Louisiana expects 2021 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit costs of approximately $5.4 million.  Entergy Louisiana contributed $16.1 million to its other postretirement plans in 2020 and estimates that 2021 contributions will be approximately $15.6 million.

Other Contingencies

See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.

New Accounting Pronouncements

See “New Accounting Pronouncements” section of Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.

354

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the member and Board of Directors of
Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, cash flows, and changes in equity (pages 357 through 362 and applicable items in pages 51 through 238), for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2020, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Critical Audit Matter

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which they relate.

Rate and Regulatory Matters —Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries — Refer to Note 2 to the financial statements

Critical Audit Matter Description

The Company is subject to rate regulation by the Louisiana Public Service Commission (the “LPSC”), which has jurisdiction with respect to the rates of electric companies in Louisiana, and to wholesale rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Management has determined it meets the requirements under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America to prepare its financial statements applying
355

the specialized rules to account for the effects of cost-based rate regulation. Accounting for the economics of rate regulation impacts multiple financial statement line items and disclosures, such as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets and liabilities; income taxes; operating revenues; operation and maintenance expense; and depreciation and amortization expense.

The Company’s rates are subject to regulatory rate-setting processes and annual earnings oversight. Because the LPSC and the FERC set the rates the Company is allowed to charge customers based on allowable costs, including a reasonable return on equity, the Company applies accounting standards that require the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation, including the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities. The Company assesses whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in applicable regulatory and political environments. While the Company has indicated it expects to recover costs from customers through regulated rates, there is a risk that the LPSC and the FERC will not approve: (1) full recovery of the costs of providing utility service, or (2) full recovery of amounts invested in the utility business and a reasonable return on that investment.

We identified the impact of rate regulation as a critical audit matter due to the significant judgments made by management to support its assertions about impacted account balances and disclosures and the high degree of subjectivity involved in assessing the impact of future regulatory orders on the financial statements. Management judgments include assessing the likelihood of recovery in future rates of incurred costs and refunds to customers. Auditing management’s judgments regarding the outcome of future decisions by the LPSC and the FERC, involved especially subjective judgment and specialized knowledge of accounting for rate regulation and the rate setting process.

How the Critical Audit Matter Was Addressed in the Audit

Our audit procedures related to the uncertainty of future decisions by the LPSC and the FERC included the following, among others:

We tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the evaluation of the likelihood of (1) the recovery in future rates of costs incurred as property, plant, and equipment and deferred as regulatory assets, and (2) a refund or a future reduction in rates that should be reported as regulatory liabilities. We also tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the initial recognition of amounts as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets or liabilities; and the monitoring and evaluation of regulatory developments that may affect the likelihood of recovering costs in future rates or of a future reduction in rates.
We evaluated the Company’s disclosures related to the impacts of rate regulation, including the balances recorded and regulatory developments.
We read relevant regulatory orders issued by the LPSC and the FERC for the Company and other public utilities, regulatory statutes, interpretations, procedural memorandums, filings made by intervenors, and other publicly available information to assess the likelihood of recovery in future rates or of a future reduction in rates based on precedents of the LPSC’s and the FERC’s treatment of similar costs under similar circumstances. We evaluated the external information and compared to management’s recorded regulatory asset and liability balances for completeness.
For regulatory matters in process, we inspected the Company’s filings with the LPSC and the FERC, including the annual formula rate plan filing, and considered the filings with the LPSC and the FERC by intervenors that may impact the Company’s future rates, for any evidence that might contradict management’s assertions.
We obtained an analysis from management and support from internal and external legal counsel, as appropriate, regarding probability of recovery for regulatory assets or refund or future reduction in rates for regulatory liabilities not yet addressed in a regulatory order to assess management’s assertion that amounts are probable of recovery or a future reduction in rates.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 2021

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2001.
356


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING REVENUES   
Electric$4,019,063 $4,223,027 $4,232,541 
Natural gas50,799 62,148 63,779 
TOTAL4,069,862 4,285,175 4,296,320 
OPERATING EXPENSES   
Operation and Maintenance:   
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale700,152 845,108 915,410 
Purchased power596,480 810,462 960,272 
Nuclear refueling outage expenses55,305 54,170 51,626 
Other operation and maintenance969,630 994,637 959,185 
Decommissioning65,225 59,346 53,736 
Taxes other than income taxes208,902 194,222 183,745 
Depreciation and amortization609,931 535,791 492,179 
Other regulatory charges (credits) - net(584)(105,203)4,396 
TOTAL3,205,041 3,388,533 3,620,549 
OPERATING INCOME864,821 896,642 675,771 
OTHER INCOME   
Allowance for equity funds used during construction38,151 74,023 79,922 
Interest and investment income225,627 231,985 141,882 
Miscellaneous - net(116,366)(115,427)(27,530)
TOTAL147,412 190,581 194,274 
INTEREST EXPENSE   
Interest expense331,352 309,493 288,658 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction(19,147)(35,430)(39,616)
TOTAL312,205 274,063 249,042 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES700,028 813,160 621,003 
Income taxes(382,324)121,623 (54,611)
NET INCOME$1,082,352 $691,537 $675,614 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

357


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Net Income$1,082,352 $691,537 $675,614 
Other comprehensive income (loss)   
Pension and other postretirement liabilities   
(net of tax expense (benefit) of ($83), $3,781, and $17,743)(235)10,715 50,296 
Other comprehensive income (loss)(235)10,715 50,296 
Comprehensive Income$1,082,117 $702,252 $725,910 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

358


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES   
Net income$1,082,352 $691,537 $675,614 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:
Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning, including nuclear fuel amortization783,616 685,062 662,390 
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued(356,256)196,533 174,063 
Changes in working capital:   
Receivables(79,451)13,942 89,701 
Fuel inventory(9,067)(7,195)5,310 
Accounts payable160,659 (33,375)11,372 
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued50,576 (38,827)12,711 
Interest accrued4,505 4,294 7,922 
Deferred fuel costs(57,895)24,234 (40,036)
Other working capital accounts(76,284)(62,536)(5,809)
Changes in provisions for estimated losses(295,480)9,664 8,307 
Changes in other regulatory assets(410,855)(210,134)40,765 
Changes in other regulatory liabilities71,698 (35,881)(125,185)
Changes in pension and other postretirement liabilities12,199 35,162 (106,269)
Other192,669 (36,478)(15,652)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities1,072,986 1,236,002 1,395,204 
INVESTING ACTIVITIES   
Construction expenditures(1,960,787)(1,673,194)(1,805,641)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction38,151 74,023 79,922 
Nuclear fuel purchases(92,831)(85,984)(111,329)
Proceeds from the sale of nuclear fuel44,511 11,596 53,603 
Payments to storm reserve escrow account(1,488)(6,353)(4,770)
Receipts from storm reserve escrow account297,363 
Changes in securitization account951 (32)(1,655)
Proceeds from nuclear decommissioning trust fund sales347,021 412,559 1,055,690 
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust funds(372,227)(442,501)(1,097,204)
Changes in money pool receivable - net(13,426)46,843 (35,672)
Proceeds from sale of assets11,987 
Payment for purchase of assets(236,999)(26,623)
Insurance proceeds7,040 3,480 
Litigation proceeds for reimbursement of spent nuclear fuel storage costs5,090 2,369 
Net cash flow used in investing activities(1,944,671)(1,653,634)(1,878,208)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES   
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt3,675,083 2,691,133 2,319,799 
Retirement of long-term debt(1,962,635)(2,199,053)(1,664,354)
Change in money pool payable - net(82,826)82,826 
Changes in short-term borrowings - net(43,540)
Distributions paid:   
Common equity(21,500)(208,000)(128,000)
Other(10,423)9,368 6,556 
Net cash flow provided by financing activities1,597,699 376,274 490,461 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents726,014 (41,358)7,457 
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period2,006 43,364 35,907 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$728,020 $2,006 $43,364 
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:   
Cash paid (received) during the period for:   
Interest - net of amount capitalized$318,352 $296,842 $272,335 
Income taxes($14,714)$15,272 ($105,157)
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

359


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT ASSETS  
Cash and cash equivalents:  
Cash$1,303 $488 
Temporary cash investments726,717 1,518 
Total cash and cash equivalents728,020 2,006 
Accounts receivable:  
Customer317,905 194,869 
Allowance for doubtful accounts(45,693)(1,902)
Associated companies81,624 77,212 
Other41,760 42,179 
Accrued unbilled revenues178,840 169,201 
Total accounts receivable574,436 481,559 
Deferred fuel costs2,250 
Fuel inventory50,680 41,613 
Materials and supplies - at average cost437,933 354,020 
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs48,407 56,743 
Prepaid taxes7,959 
Prepayments and other36,813 37,837 
TOTAL1,878,539 981,737 
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
Investment in affiliate preferred membership interests1,390,587 1,390,587 
Decommissioning trust funds1,794,042 1,563,812 
Storm reserve escrow account295,875 
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation)323,110 312,896 
Other13,399 13,476 
TOTAL3,521,138 3,576,646 
UTILITY PLANT  
Electric25,619,789 22,620,365 
Natural gas262,744 235,678 
Construction work in progress667,281 1,383,603 
Nuclear fuel210,128 267,779 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT26,759,942 24,507,425 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization9,372,224 9,118,524 
UTILITY PLANT - NET17,387,718 15,388,901 
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
Regulatory assets:  
Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $5,088 as of December 31, 2020 and $27,596 as of December 31, 2019)1,726,066 1,315,211 
Deferred fuel costs168,122 168,122 
Other23,924 33,491 
TOTAL1,918,112 1,516,824 
TOTAL ASSETS$24,705,507 $21,464,108 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

360

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Currently maturing long-term debt$240,000 $320,002 
Accounts payable:  
Associated companies103,148 187,615 
Other1,450,008 357,206 
Customer deposits152,612 153,097 
Taxes accrued42,617 
Interest accrued92,249 87,744 
Deferred fuel costs55,645 
Current portion of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes31,138 31,138 
Other62,968 64,668 
TOTAL2,174,740 1,257,115 
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued2,138,522 2,464,513 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits107,317 112,128 
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net447,628 500,083 
Other regulatory liabilities918,293 794,140 
Decommissioning1,573,307 1,497,349 
Accumulated provisions24,939 320,419 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities692,728 677,619 
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $10,278 as of December 31, 2020 and $33,220 as of December 31, 2019)8,787,451 6,983,667 
Other382,894 459,957 
TOTAL15,073,079 13,809,875 
Commitments and Contingencies00
EQUITY  
Members equity
7,453,361 6,392,556 
Accumulated other comprehensive income4,327 4,562 
TOTAL7,457,688 6,397,118 
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY$24,705,507 $21,464,108 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

361


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
 Common Equity 
 
Members Equity
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)Total
 (In Thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2017$5,355,204 ($46,400)$5,308,804 
Net income675,614 675,614 
Other comprehensive income50,296 50,296 
Distributions declared on common equity(128,000)(128,000)
Reclassification pursuant to ASU 2018-026,262 (10,049)(3,787)
Other(9)(9)
Balance at December 31, 2018$5,909,071 ($6,153)$5,902,918 
Net income691,537 691,537 
Other comprehensive income10,715 10,715 
Distributions declared on common equity(208,000)(208,000)
Other(52)(52)
Balance at December 31, 2019$6,392,556 $4,562 $6,397,118 
Net income1,082,352 1,082,352 
Other comprehensive loss(235)(235)
Distributions declared on common equity(21,500)(21,500)
Other(47)(47)
Balance at December 31, 2020$7,453,361 $4,327 $7,457,688 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

362


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
 20202019201820172016
 (In Thousands)
Operating revenues$4,069,862 $4,285,175 $4,296,320 $4,300,550 $4,177,048 
Net income$1,082,352 $691,537 $675,614 $316,347 $622,047 
Total assets$24,705,507 $21,464,108 $19,651,815 $18,448,864 $17,701,271 
Long-term obligations (a)$8,787,451 $6,983,667 $6,805,766 $5,469,069 $5,612,593 
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt).
 20202019201820172016
 (Dollars In Millions)
Electric Operating Revenues:     
Residential$1,270 $1,271 $1,244 $1,198 $1,196 
Commercial887 947 941 956 930 
Industrial1,314 1,451 1,462 1,534 1,350 
Governmental69 71 69 69 67 
Total billed retail3,540 3,740 3,716 3,757 3,543 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies276 273 295 278 368 
Non-associated companies58 60 62 64 50 
Other145 150 160 147 165 
Total$4,019 $4,223 $4,233 $4,246 $4,126 
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh):     
Residential13,771 14,046 14,494 13,357 13,810 
Commercial10,465 11,353 11,578 11,342 11,478 
Industrial28,881 29,801 29,255 29,754 28,517 
Governmental779 827 823 790 794 
Total retail53,896 56,027 56,150 55,243 54,599 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies5,585 4,813 5,498 4,793 7,345 
Non-associated companies2,365 1,924 1,762 1,711 1,690 
Total61,846 62,764 63,410 61,747 63,634 

363


ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC

MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The COVID-19 Pandemic

See “The COVID-19” Pandemic section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

February 2021 Winter Storms

See the “February 2021 Winter Storms” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the February 2021 winter storms. Entergy Mississippi’s preliminary estimate for the cost of mobilizing crews and restoring power is approximately $50 million to $60 million. Natural gas purchases for Entergy Mississippi for February 1st through 25th, 2021 are approximately $45 million compared to natural gas purchases for February 2020 of $14 million.

Results of Operations

2020 Compared to 2019

Net Income

Net income increased $20.7 million primarily due to higher retail electric price, partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses, higher other operation and maintenance expenses, and lower volume/weather.

Operating Revenues

Following is an analysis of the change in operating revenues comparing 2020 to 2019.
Amount
(In Millions)
2019 operating revenues$1,323.0 
Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income(153.2)
Volume/weather(17.6)
Retail electric price95.7 
2020 operating revenues1,247.9

Entergy Mississippi’s results include revenues from rate mechanisms designed to recover fuel, purchased power, and other costs such that the revenues and expenses associated with these items generally offset and do not affect net income. “Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income” includes the revenue variance associated with these items.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to decreased commercial and industrial usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the effect of less favorable weather on residential sales, partially offset by increased residential usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

364

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
The retail electric price variance is primarily due to:

increases in the formula rate plan rates effective with the first billing cycles of July 2019 and April 2020 and an interim capacity rate adjustment to the formula rate plan effective January 2020 to recover non-fuel related costs of acquiring and operating the Choctaw Generating Station; and
the implementation of a vegetation management rider effective with the April 2020 billing cycle.

See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the formula rate plan filings and the vegetation management rider.

Other Income Statement Variances

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to:

an increase of $13.5 million in non-nuclear generation expenses primarily due to an increase in costs after the purchase of the Choctaw Generating Station in October 2019, partially offset by a decrease of $11.1 million primarily due to a lower scope of work performed during plant outages in 2020 as compared to the same period in 2019, including a delay in plant outages as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;
an increase of $8.1 million in storm damage provisions. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of storm cost recovery;
an increase of $4.7 million in distribution operations costs due to a higher scope of work, including contract costs in 2020 as compared to the same period in 2019;
an increase of $2.5 million in energy efficiency costs due to the timing of recovery from customers; and
several individually insignificant items.

The increase was partially offset by a decrease of $3.7 million primarily due to contract costs in 2019 related to initiatives to explore new customer products and services.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily as a result of higher depreciation rates effective July 2019, as approved by the MPSC, and additions to plant in service, including the Choctaw Generating Station, which was purchased in October 2019.

The effective income tax rates were 16.2% for 2020 and 20.5% for 2019. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rates of 21% to the effective income tax rates.

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Entergy Mississippi’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of results of operations for 2019 compared to 2018.

365

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018 were as follows:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period$51,601 $36,954 $6,096 
Net cash provided by (used in):   
Operating activities300,314 339,952 418,382 
Investing activities(530,762)(733,684)(419,453)
Financing activities178,865 408,379 31,929 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents(51,583)14,647 30,858 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$18 $51,601 $36,954 

2020 Compared to 2019

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $39.6 million in 2020 primarily due to:

the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power;
lower collections of receivables from customers, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
an increase of $10.3 million in storm spending in 2020.

The decrease was partially offset by the timing of payments to vendors and a decrease of $8.2 million in pension contributions in 2020. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.

Investing Activities

Net cash flow used in investing activities decreased $202.9 million in 2020 primarily due to:

the purchase of the Choctaw Generating Station in October 2019 for approximately $305 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Choctaw Generating Station purchase; and
money pool activity.

The decrease was partially offset by:

an increase of $47.3 million in storm spending in 2020;
an increase of $40.9 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to investment in the reliability and infrastructure of Entergy Mississippi’s distribution system, including increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure;
an increase of $25.8 million in non-nuclear construction expenditures primarily due to increased expenditures after the purchase of the Choctaw Generating Station in October 2019 and higher long-term service agreement expenses;
$24.6 million in plant upgrades for Choctaw Generating Station in March 2020; and
366

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
an increase of $22.4 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a higher scope of work performed in 2020 as compared to 2019.

Decreases in Entergy Mississippi’s receivable from the money pool are a source of cash flow, and Entergy Mississippi’s receivable from the money pool decreased by $44.7 million in 2020 compared to increasing by $3.3 million in 2019. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.

Financing Activities

Net cash flow provided by financing activities decreased $229.5 million in 2020 primarily due to:

the issuance of $170 million of 3.5% Series mortgage bonds in 2020 compared to the issuance of $435 million of 3.85% Series mortgage bonds in 2019; and
a capital contribution of $130 million in October 2019 in anticipation of the purchase of the Choctaw Generating Station.

The decrease was partially offset by the repayment, at maturity, of $150 million of 6.64% Series mortgage bonds in July 2019 and money pool activity.

Increases in Entergy Mississippi’s payable to the money pool are a source of cash flow, and Entergy Mississippi’s payable to the money pool increased $16.5 million in 2020.

See Note 5 to the financial statements for details on long-term debt.

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Cash Flow” in Item 7 of Entergy Mississippi’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2019 compared to 2018.

Capital Structure

Entergy Mississippi’s debt to capital ratio is shown in the following table.
 December 31,
2020
December 31,
2019
Debt to capital51.7 %51.2 %
Effect of subtracting cash— %(0.8 %)
Net debt to net capital51.7 %50.4 %

Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents.  Debt consists of short-term borrowings, finance lease obligations, and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion.  Capital consists of debt and equity.  Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents.  Entergy Mississippi uses the debt to capital ratio in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Mississippi’s financial condition.  Entergy Mississippi uses the net debt to net capital ratio in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Mississippi’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy Mississippi’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.

367

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Entergy Mississippi seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings.  To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a distribution, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the capital structure.  To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Mississippi may issue incremental debt or reduce distributions, or both, to maintain its capital structure.  In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as financing of large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing distributions, Entergy Mississippi may receive equity contributions to maintain its capital structure.

Uses of Capital

Entergy Mississippi requires capital resources for:

construction and other capital investments;
debt maturities or retirements;
working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel and purchased power costs; and
distributions and interest payments.

Following are the amounts of Entergy Mississippi’s planned construction and other capital investments.
 202120222023
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:  
Generation$180 $140 $180 
Transmission120 75 55 
Distribution210 200 225 
Utility Support80 85 30 
Total$590 $500 $490 

Following are the amounts of Entergy Mississippi’s existing debt obligations and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 20212022-20232024-2025After 2025Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)$65 $376 $209 $2,575 $3,225 
Operating leases (b)$6 $8 $2 $2 $18 
Finance leases (b)$2 $3 $2 $1 $8 
Purchase obligations (c)$223 $434 $412 $3,779 $4,848 

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.
(c)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Mississippi, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which is discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements.

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, Entergy Mississippi currently expects to contribute approximately $13.7 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $130 thousand to other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2021, although the 2021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2021.  See
368

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
Critical Accounting Estimates– Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.

Also, in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy Mississippi has $84 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.

In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Mississippi includes amounts associated with specific investments such as the Sunflower Solar Facility; transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to enhance reliability and improve service to customers, including advanced meters and related investments; resource planning, including potential generation and renewables projects; system improvements; software and security; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital.

As a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, Entergy Mississippi pays distributions from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.

Sunflower Solar Facility

In November 2018, Entergy Mississippi announced that it signed an agreement for the purchase of an approximately 100 MW solar photovoltaic facility that will be sited on approximately 1,000 acres in Sunflower County, Mississippi.  The estimated base purchase price is approximately $138.4 million.  The estimated total investment, including the base purchase price and other related costs, for Entergy Mississippi to acquire the Sunflower Solar Facility is approximately $153.2 million. The purchase is contingent upon, among other things, obtaining necessary approvals, including full cost recovery, from applicable federal and state regulatory and permitting agencies.  The project is being built by Sunflower County Solar Project, LLC, an indirect subsidiary of Recurrent Energy, LLC. Entergy Mississippi will purchase the facility upon mechanical completion and after the other purchase contingencies have been met.  In December 2018, Entergy Mississippi filed a joint petition with Sunflower Solar Project with the MPSC for Sunflower Solar Project to construct and for Entergy Mississippi to acquire and thereafter own, operate, improve, and maintain the solar facility.  Entergy Mississippi proposed revisions to its formula rate plan that would provide for a mechanism, the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, in the formula rate plan to recover the non-fuel related costs of additional owned capacity acquired by Entergy Mississippi, including the annual ownership costs of the Sunflower Solar Facility.  In December 2019 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s proposed revisions to its formula rate plan to provide for an interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism. Recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment requires MPSC approval for each new resource. In August 2019 consultants retained by the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed a report expressing concerns regarding the project economics. In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi filed supplemental testimony addressing questions and observations raised by the consultants retained by the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff and proposing an alternative structure for the transaction that would reduce its cost. A hearing before the MPSC was held in March 2020. In April 2020 the MPSC issued an order approving certification of the Sunflower Solar Facility and its recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, subject to certain conditions including: (i) that Entergy Mississippi pursue a partnership structure through which the partnership would acquire and own the facility under the build-own-transfer agreement and (ii) that if Entergy Mississippi does not consummate the partnership structure under the terms of the order, there will be a cap of $136 million on the level of recoverable costs. Closing is targeted to occur by the end of 2021.

369

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Sources of Capital

Entergy Mississippi’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
storm reserve escrow accounts;
debt or preferred membership interest issuances, including debt issuances to refund or retire currently outstanding or maturing indebtedness;
capital contributions; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.

Entergy Mississippi may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest rates are favorable.

All debt and preferred membership interest issuances by Entergy Mississippi require prior regulatory approval.  Debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its bond indenture and other agreements.  Entergy Mississippi has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.

Entergy Mississippi’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
2020201920182017
(In Thousands)
($16,516)$44,693$41,380$1,633

See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.

Entergy Mississippi has three separate credit facilities in the aggregate amount of $82.5 million scheduled to expire in April 2021. No borrowings were outstanding under the credit facilities as of December 31, 2020.  In addition, Entergy Mississippi is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility primarily as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO. As of December 31, 2020, $1 million of MISO letters of credit and $1 million of non-MISO letters of credit were outstanding under this facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the credit facilities.

Entergy Mississippi obtained authorization from the FERC through July 2022 for short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $175 million at any time outstanding and long-term borrowings and security issuances. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s short-term borrowing limits.

Entergy Mississippi has $33 million in its storm reserve escrow account at December 31, 2020.

State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery

The rates that Entergy Mississippi charges for electricity significantly influence its financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. Entergy Mississippi is regulated and the rates charged to its customers are determined in regulatory proceedings. A governmental agency, the MPSC, is primarily responsible for approval of the rates charged to customers.

370

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
Formula Rate Plan Filings

In October 2018, Entergy Mississippi proposed revisions to its formula rate plan that would provide for a mechanism in the formula rate plan, the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, to recover the non-fuel related costs of additional owned capacity acquired by Entergy Mississippi, including the non-fuel annual ownership costs of the Choctaw Generating Station, as well as to allow similar cost recovery treatment for other future capacity acquisitions, such as the Sunflower Solar Facility, that are approved by the MPSC. In December 2019 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s proposed revisions to its formula rate plan to provide for an interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism to recover the $59 million first-year annual revenue requirement associated with the non-fuel ownership costs of the Choctaw Generating Station, which Entergy Mississippi began billing in January 2020. The MPSC must approve recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment for each new resource. In addition, the MPSC approved revisions to the formula rate plan which allows Entergy Mississippi to begin billing rate adjustments effective April 1 of the filing year on a temporary basis subject to refund or credit to customers, subject to final MPSC order. The MPSC also authorized Entergy Mississippi to remove vegetation management costs from the formula rate plan and recover these costs through the establishment of a vegetation management rider. Effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, Entergy Mississippi implemented a rider to recover $22 million in vegetation management costs.

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 May 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.

In March 2020, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2020 test year filing and 2019 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2019 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2020 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2020 test year filing shows a $24.6 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2019 look-back filing compares actual 2019 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $7.3 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In accordance with the MPSC-approved revisions to the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2019 retail revenues, effective with the April 2020 billing cycle, subject to refund. In June 2020, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed that the 2020 test year filing showed that a $23.8 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of
371

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

adjustment of 6.51% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2019 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 6.75% in calendar year 2019, which is within the look-back bandwidth. As a result, there is no change in formula rate plan revenues in the 2019 look-back filing. In June 2020 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective for the first billing cycle of July 2020. In the June 2020 order the MPSC directed Entergy Mississippi to submit revisions to its formula rate plan to realign recovery of costs from its energy efficiency cost recovery rider to its formula rate plan. In November 2020 the MPSC approved Entergy Mississippi’s revisions to its formula rate plan providing for the realignment of energy efficiency costs to its formula rate plan, the deferral of energy efficiency expenditures into a regulatory asset, and the elimination of its energy efficiency cost recovery rider effective with the January 2022 billing cycle.

COVID-19 Order

In March 2020 the MPSC issued an order suspending disconnections for a period of sixty days. The MPSC extended the order on disconnections through May 26, 2020. In April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. In December 2020, Entergy Mississippi resumed disconnections for commercial, industrial, and governmental customers with past-due balances that have not made payment arrangements. In January 2021, Entergy Mississippi resumed disconnecting service for residential customers with past-due balances that have not made arrangements. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19.2 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Internal Restructuring

In March 2018, Entergy Mississippi filed an application with the MPSC seeking authorization to undertake a restructuring that would result in the transfer of substantially all of the assets and operations of Entergy New Orleans, Inc.Mississippi to a new entity, which would ultimately be ownedheld by an existing Entergy subsidiary holding company. The restructuring was subject to regulatory review and approval by the City CouncilIn September 2018, Entergy Mississippi and the FERC.Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into and filed a joint stipulation regarding the restructuring filing. In May 2017September 2018 the City Council adopted a resolutionMPSC issued an order accepting the stipulation in its entirety and approving the proposed internal restructuring pursuant to an agreement in principle with the City Council advisors and certain intervenors. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans would credit retail customers $10credits of $27 million in 2017, $1.4 million in the first quarter of the year after the transaction closes, and $117,500 each month in the second year after the transaction closes until such time as new base rates go into effect as a result of the anticipated 2018 base rate case. Entergy New Orleans began crediting retail customers in June 2017. In June 2017 the FERC approved the transaction and, pursuant to the agreement in principle, Entergy New Orleans will provide additional credits to retail customers over six years, consisting of $5annual payments of $4.5 million in each offor the years 2018, 2019, and 2020.2019-2024. Entergy Mississippi also received the required FERC approval.


In November 2017, pursuant to the agreement in principle,2018, Entergy New OrleansMississippi undertook a multi-step restructuring, including the following:


Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. redeemed its outstanding preferred stock, at athe aggregate redemption price of approximately $21 million, which included a call premium of approximately $819,000, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends.$21.2 million.
Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. converted from a LouisianaMississippi corporation to a Texas corporation.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy New OrleansMississippi Power and Light, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Entergy New Orleans Power)Mississippi Power and Light), and Entergy New OrleansMississippi Power and Light assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc., in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. remained in existence and held the membership interests in Entergy New Orleans Power.Mississippi Power and Light.
Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. contributed the membership interests in Entergy New OrleansMississippi Power and Light to an affiliate (Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation). As a result of the contribution, Entergy New OrleansMississippi Power and Light is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC.


In December 2017,2018, Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. changed its name to Entergy Utility Group,Enterprises, Inc., and Entergy New OrleansMississippi Power and Light then changed its name to Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, LLC. Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, LLC holds substantially all of the assets, and has assumed substantially all of the liabilities, of Entergy New Orleans,Mississippi, Inc. The restructuring was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control.

372

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

In December 2018, Entergy Mississippi filed its notice of intent to implement the restructuring credit rider to allow Entergy Mississippi to return credits of $27 million to retail customers over six years. In January 2019 the MPSC approved the proposed restructuring credit adjustment factor, which is effective for bills rendered beginning February 2019.

Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery

Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include an energy cost recovery rider that is adjusted annually to reflect accumulated over- or under-recoveries.  Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to annual audits conducted pursuant to the authority of the MPSC.

In January 2017 the MPSC certified to the Mississippi Legislature the audit reports of its independent auditors for the fuel year ending September 30, 2016. In November 2017 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff separately engaged a consultant to review the September 2016 outage at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station and to review ongoing operations at Grand Gulf. This engagement continues, and subsequently, was expanded to include all outages at Grand Gulf that occurred through 2019.

In November 2017, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included an under-recovery of approximately $61.5 million as of September 30, 2017. In January 2018 the MPSC approved the proposed energy cost factors effective for February 2018 bills.

In November 2018, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included an under-recovery of approximately $57 million as of September 30, 2018. In January 2019 the MPSC approved the proposed energy cost factor effective for February 2019 bills.

In November 2019, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation included $39.6 million of prior over-recovery flowing back to customers beginning September 2020. Entergy Mississippi’s balance in its deferred fuel account did not decrease as expected after implementation of the new factor. In an effort to assist customers during the COVID-19 pandemic, in May 2020, Entergy Mississippi requested an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider to credit approximately $50 million from the over-recovered balance in the deferred fuel account to customers over four consecutive billing months. The MPSC approved this interim adjustment in May 2020 effective for June through September 2020 bills.

In November 2020, Entergy Mississippi filed its annual redetermination of the annual factor to be applied under the energy cost recovery rider. The calculation of the annual factor included an over-recovery of approximately $24.4 million as of September 30, 2020. In January 2021 the MPSC approved the proposed energy cost factor effective for February 2021 bills.

Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators

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. Entergy Mississippi’s storm damage provision balance has been less than $10 million since May 2019, and Entergy Mississippi has been billing the monthly storm damage provision since July 2019.

373

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Federal Regulation

See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation– Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.

Nuclear Matters

See the “Nuclear Matters” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of nuclear matters.

Environmental Risks

Entergy Mississippi’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.  Management believes that Entergy Mississippi is in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted in “Regulation of Entergy’s Business - Environmental Regulation” in Part I, Item 1.  Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance costs cannot be precisely estimated.

Critical Accounting Estimates

The preparation of Entergy Mississippi’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to apply appropriate accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that can have a significant effect on reported financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Management has identified the following accounting policies and estimates as critical because they are based on assumptions and measurements that involve a high degree of uncertainty, and there is the potential for future changes in the assumptions and measurements that could produce estimates that would have a material impact on the presentation of Entergy Mississippi’s financial position or results of operations.

Utility Regulatory Accounting

See “Utility Regulatory Accounting” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of accounting for the effects of rate regulation.

Impairment of Long-lived Assets

See “Impairment of Long-lived Assets” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the impairment of long-lived assets.

Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions

See “Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.

Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits

Entergy Mississippi’s qualified pension and other postretirement reported costs, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are impacted by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms. See the “Qualified
374

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.  Because of the complexity of these calculations, the long-term nature of these obligations, and the importance of the assumptions utilized, Entergy’s estimate of these costs is a critical accounting estimate.

Cost Sensitivity

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension cost and qualified projected benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Qualified Pension CostImpact on 2020 Projected Qualified Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$654$12,777
Rate of return on plan assets(0.25%)$828$—
Rate of increase in compensation0.25%$533$2,720

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Postretirement Benefit CostImpact on 2020 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$59$1,970
Health care cost trend0.25%$73$1,402

Each fluctuation above assumes that the other components of the calculation are held constant.

Costs and Employer Contributions

Total qualified pension cost for Entergy Mississippi in 2020 was $20.2 million, including $3.4 million in settlement costs. Entergy Mississippi anticipates 2021 qualified pension cost to be $19.6 million.  Entergy Mississippi contributed $12.6 million to its qualified pension plans in 2020 and estimates 2021 pension contributions will be approximately $13.7 million, although the 2021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 2021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2021.

Total postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income for Entergy Mississippi in 2020 was $3.6 million. Entergy Mississippi expects 2021 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income of approximately $4.7 million. Entergy Mississippi contributed $343 thousand to its other postretirement plans in 2020 and estimates that 2021 contributions will be approximately $130 thousand.

Other Contingencies

See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.

375

Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

New Accounting Pronouncements

See “New Accounting Pronouncements” section of Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.

376

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the member and Board of Directors of
Entergy Mississippi, LLC

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Entergy Mississippi, LLC (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, the related statements of income, cash flows and changes in member’s equity (pages 379 through 384 and applicable items in pages 51 through 238), for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2020, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Critical Audit Matter

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current-period audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Rate and Regulatory Matters —Entergy Mississippi, LLC — Refer to Note 2 to the financial statements

Critical Audit Matter Description

The Company is subject to rate regulation by the Mississippi Public Service Commission (the “MPSC”), which has jurisdiction with respect to the rates of electric companies in Mississippi, and to wholesale rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Management has determined it meets the requirements under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America to prepare its financial statements applying the specialized rules to account for the effects of cost-based rate regulation. Accounting for the economics of rate regulation impacts multiple financial statement line items and disclosures, such as property, plant, and equipment;
377

regulatory assets and liabilities; income taxes; operating revenues; operation and maintenance expense; and depreciation and amortization expense.

The Company’s rates are subject to regulatory rate-setting processes and annual earnings oversight. Because the MPSC and the FERC set the rates the Company is allowed to charge customers based on allowable costs, including a reasonable return on equity, the Company applies accounting standards that require the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation, including the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities. The Company assesses whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in applicable regulatory and political environments. While the Company has indicated it expects to recover costs from customers through regulated rates, there is a risk that the MPSC and the FERC will not approve: (1) full recovery of the costs of providing utility service, or (2) full recovery of amounts invested in the utility business and a reasonable return on that investment.

We identified the impact of rate regulation as a critical audit matter due to the significant judgments made by management to support its assertions about impacted account balances and disclosures and the high degree of subjectivity involved in assessing the impact of future regulatory orders on the financial statements. Management judgments include assessing the likelihood of recovery in future rates of incurred costs and refunds to customers. Auditing management’s judgments regarding the outcome of future decisions by the MPSC and the FERC, involved especially subjective judgment and specialized knowledge of accounting for rate regulation and the rate setting process.

How the Critical Audit Matter Was Addressed in the Audit

Our audit procedures related to the uncertainty of future decisions by the MPSC and the FERC included the following, among others:

We tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the evaluation of the likelihood of (1) the recovery in future rates of costs incurred as property, plant, and equipment and deferred as regulatory assets, and (2) a refund or a future reduction in rates that should be reported as regulatory liabilities. We also tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the initial recognition of amounts as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets or liabilities; and the monitoring and evaluation of regulatory developments that may affect the likelihood of recovering costs in future rates or of a future reduction in rates.
We evaluated the Company’s disclosures related to the impacts of rate regulation, including the balances recorded and regulatory developments.
We read relevant regulatory orders issued by the MPSC and the FERC for the Company and other public utilities, regulatory statutes, interpretations, procedural memorandums, filings made by intervenors, and other publicly available information to assess the likelihood of recovery in future rates or of a future reduction in rates based on precedents of the MPSC’s and FERC’s treatment of similar costs under similar circumstances. We evaluated the external information and compared to management’s recorded regulatory asset and liability balances for completeness.
For regulatory matters in process, we inspected the Company’s filings with the MPSC and the FERC, including the annual formula rate plan filing, and considered the filings with the MPSC and the FERC by intervenors that may impact the Company’s future rates, for any evidence that might contradict management’s assertions.
We obtained an analysis from management and support from internal and external legal counsel, as appropriate, regarding probability of recovery for regulatory assets or refund or future reduction in rates for regulatory liabilities not yet addressed in a regulatory order to assess management’s assertion that amounts are probable of recovery or a future reduction in rates.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 2021

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2001.

378


ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC
INCOME STATEMENTS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING REVENUES   
Electric$1,247,854 $1,323,043 $1,335,112 
OPERATING EXPENSES   
Operation and Maintenance:   
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale187,087 277,425 260,198 
Purchased power240,471 284,492 364,575 
Other operation and maintenance288,543 266,175 261,613 
Taxes other than income taxes101,525 105,318 101,999 
Depreciation and amortization209,252 170,886 152,577 
Other regulatory charges (credits) - net(15,219)14,993 147,704 
TOTAL1,011,659 1,119,289 1,288,666 
OPERATING INCOME236,195 203,754 46,446 
OTHER INCOME (DEDUCTIONS)   
Allowance for equity funds used during construction6,726 8,356 8,710 
Interest and investment income272 1,412 135 
Miscellaneous - net(9,253)(4,478)(2,732)
TOTAL(2,255)5,290 6,113 
INTEREST EXPENSE   
Interest expense68,945 61,785 55,905 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction(2,778)(3,532)(3,651)
TOTAL66,167 58,253 52,254 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES167,773 150,791 305 
Income taxes27,190 30,866 (125,773)
NET INCOME140,583 119,925 126,078 
Preferred dividend requirements and other834 
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON EQUITY$140,583 $119,925 $125,244 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   



379


























(Page left blank intentionally)
380


ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES   
Net income$140,583 $119,925 $126,078 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization209,252 170,886 152,577 
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued36,827 32,547 56,502 
Changes in assets and liabilities:   
Receivables(1,889)(17,245)37,762 
Fuel inventory(1,978)(3,208)33,675 
Accounts payable22,794 (226)(7,472)
Taxes accrued17,423 13,109 (5,291)
Interest accrued1,989 (1,331)(2,670)
Deferred fuel costs(55,711)78,418 24,428 
Other working capital accounts630 (5,557)(9,902)
Provisions for estimated losses(3,517)(1,121)6,378 
Other regulatory assets(89,369)(34,923)54,860 
Other regulatory liabilities(18,672)(21,524)(131,856)
Pension and other postretirement liabilities11,319 6,534 (8,405)
Other assets and liabilities30,633 3,668 91,718 
Net cash flow provided by operating activities300,314 339,952 418,382 
INVESTING ACTIVITIES   
Construction expenditures(555,287)(432,600)(387,293)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction6,726 8,356 8,710 
Changes in money pool receivable - net44,692 (3,313)(39,747)
Payment for purchase of plant or assets(28,612)(305,472)
Other1,719 (655)(1,123)
Net cash flow used in investing activities(530,762)(733,684)(419,453)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES   
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt165,385 437,153 54,449 
Retirement of long-term debt(150,000)
Changes in money pool payable - net16,516 
Redemption of preferred stock(21,208)
Capital contributions from parent130,000 
Distributions/dividends paid:   
Common equity(10,000)(10,000)
Preferred stock(993)
Other6,964 (8,774)9,681 
Net cash flow provided by financing activities178,865 408,379 31,929 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents(51,583)14,647 30,858 
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period51,601 36,954 6,096 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$18 $51,601 $36,954 
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:  
Cash paid (received) during the period for:   
Interest - net of amount capitalized$64,536 $60,533 $56,037 
Income taxes($8,084)($12,204)($19,118)
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

381


ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT ASSETS  
Cash and cash equivalents:  
Cash$11 $11 
Temporary cash investments51,590 
Total cash and cash equivalents18 51,601 
Accounts receivable:  
Customer105,732 92,050 
Allowance for doubtful accounts(19,527)(636)
Associated companies2,740 49,257 
Other11,821 14,986 
Accrued unbilled revenues59,514 47,426 
Total accounts receivable160,280 203,083 
Fuel inventory - at average cost17,117 15,139 
Materials and supplies - at average cost59,542 57,972 
Prepayments and other4,876 7,149 
TOTAL241,833 334,944 
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation)4,543 4,560 
Escrow accounts64,635 80,201 
TOTAL69,178 84,761 
UTILITY PLANT  
Electric6,084,730 5,672,589 
Construction work in progress134,854 88,373 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT6,219,584 5,760,962 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization2,005,087 1,894,000 
UTILITY PLANT - NET4,214,497 3,866,962 
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
Regulatory assets:  
Other regulatory assets467,341 377,972 
Other14,413 10,105 
TOTAL481,754 388,077 
TOTAL ASSETS$5,007,262 $4,674,744 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

382

ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC
BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Accounts payable:  
Associated companies$61,727 $48,090 
Other117,629 94,729 
Customer deposits86,200 85,938 
Taxes accrued108,084 90,661 
Interest accrued20,889 18,900 
Deferred fuel costs14,691 70,402 
Other34,270 32,667 
TOTAL443,490 441,387 
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued646,674 594,832 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits9,062 9,602 
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net224,000 236,988 
Other regulatory liabilities15,828 21,512 
Asset retirement cost liabilities9,762 9,727 
Accumulated provisions46,504 50,021 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities110,901 99,406 
Long-term debt1,780,577 1,614,129 
Other47,730 54,989 
TOTAL2,891,038 2,691,206 
Commitments and Contingencies00
EQUITY  
Member's equity1,672,734 1,542,151 
TOTAL1,672,734 1,542,151 
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY$5,007,262 $4,674,744 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

383


ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN MEMBER'S EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
Member's Equity
(In Thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2017$1,177,870 
Net income126,078 
Common equity distributions(10,000)
Preferred stock dividends(834)
Other(888)
Balance at December 31, 2018$1,292,226 
Net income119,925 
Capital contribution from parent130,000 
Balance at December 31, 2019$1,542,151 
Net income140,583 
Common equity distributions(10,000)
Balance at December 31, 2020$1,672,734 
See Notes to Financial Statements.

384


ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
 20202019201820172016
 (In Thousands)
Operating revenues$1,247,854 $1,323,043 $1,335,112 $1,198,229 $1,094,649 
Net income$140,583 $119,925 $126,078 $110,032 $109,184 
Total assets$5,007,262 $4,674,744 $3,946,804 $3,879,375 $3,602,140 
Long-term obligations (a)$1,780,577 $1,614,129 $1,175,750 $1,290,503 $1,141,924 
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt), non-current capital lease obligations, and preferred stock without sinking fund.
 20202019201820172016
 (Dollars In Millions)
Electric Operating Revenues:     
Residential$523 $562 $579 $502 $459 
Commercial396 444 462 423 374 
Industrial145 165 175 159 134 
Governmental42 44 44 41 38 
Total billed retail1,106 1,215 1,260 1,125 1,005 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies— — — 
Non-associated companies78 39 25 18 30 
Other64 69 49 55 59 
Total$1,248 $1,323 $1,335 $1,198 $1,095 
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh):    
Residential5,378 5,659 5,829 5,308 5,617 
Commercial4,283 4,698 4,865 4,783 4,894 
Industrial2,343 2,443 2,559 2,536 2,493 
Governmental398 436 438 421 439 
Total retail12,402 13,236 13,691 13,048 13,443 
Sales for resale:     
Non-associated companies4,316 1,776 1,060 857 1,021 
Total16,718 15,012 14,751 13,905 14,464 

385


ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENTS FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The COVID-19 Pandemic

See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hurricane Zeta

In October 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy New Orleans’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Zeta are currently estimated to be approximately $40 million, including approximately $30 million in capital costs and approximately $10 million in non-capital costs. Entergy New Orleans is considering all available avenues to recover storm-related costs from Hurricane Zeta, including accessing funded storm reserve escrows and securitization. Storm cost recovery or financing will be subject to review by applicable regulatory authorities.

Entergy New Orleans recorded accounts payable and corresponding construction work in progress and regulatory assets for the estimated costs incurred that were necessary to return customers to service. Entergy New Orleans recorded the regulatory assets in accordance with its accounting policies and based on the historic treatment of such costs in its service area because management believes that recovery through some form of regulatory mechanism is probable. There are well established mechanisms and precedent for addressing these catastrophic events and providing for recovery of prudently incurred storm costs in accordance with applicable regulatory and legal principles. Because Entergy New Orleans has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy New Orleans is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

February 2021 Winter Storms

See the “February 2021 Winter Storms” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the February 2021 winter storms. Entergy New Orleans’s preliminary estimate for the cost of mobilizing crews and restoring power is approximately $1 million. Natural gas purchases for Entergy New Orleans for February 1st through 25th, 2021 are approximately $15 million compared to natural gas purchases for February 2020 of $7 million.

Results of Operations


2020 Compared to 2019

Net Income

2017 Compared to 2016


Net income decreased $4.3$3.3 million primarily due to lower volume/weather, lower retail electric price, and higher taxes other than income taxes,interest expense, partially offset by a lower net revenue, and a higher effective income tax rate, partially offset by lower other operation and maintenance expenses and higher other income.rate.


376
386

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Operating Revenues
2016 Compared to 2015

Net income increased $3.9 million primarily due to higher net revenue, partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses, higher interest expense, and lower other income.

Net Revenue

2017 Compared to 2016

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenueoperating revenues comparing 20172020 to 2016.
2019.
Amount
(In Millions)
2016 net revenue2019 operating revenues
$686.2 
$317.2
Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income(32.5)
Volume/weather(12.5)
Retail electric price(6.4(7.4))
Volume/weather2020 operating revenues(4.3$633.8)
Other5.4
2017 net revenue
$311.9

The retail electric price variance is primarily dueEntergy New Orleans’s results include revenues from rate mechanisms designed to a net decrease in therecover fuel, purchased power, and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider. There was an increase inother costs such that the rider primarily due to credits to customers as part of the Entergy New Orleans internal restructuring agreement in principle, effective with the first billing cycle of June 2017, partially offset by lower credits to customers in 2017 related to the retirement of Michoud Units 2revenues and 3. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the creditsexpenses associated with Entergy New Orleans’s internal restructuringthese items generally offset and do not affect net income. “Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income” includes the Michoud retirement.revenue variance associated with these items.


The volume/weather variance is primarily due to a decrease of 374 GWh, or 6.4%, in billed electricity usage, including the effect of decreased commercial and governmental usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales, partially offset by an increase in residential and commercial usage resulting fromas a 1% increase in the average number of residential and commercial electric customers.

2016 Compared to 2015

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges. Following is an analysisresult of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.COVID-19 pandemic. See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Amount
(In Millions)
2015 net revenue
$293.9
Retail electric price39.0
Net gas revenue(2.5)
Volume/weather(5.1)
Other(8.1)
2016 net revenue
$317.2


The retail electric price variance is primarily due to the effects of a rate reduction implemented with April 2020 bills that was effective August 2019 in accordance with the City Council resolution and related agreement in principle reached in the 2018 base rate case. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate case.

Other Income Statement Variances

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to:

an increase inof $4.9 million primarily due to the purchased power2019 deferral of costs related to the 2018 rate case and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider,a system conversion for Algiers customers as a result of the 2018 combined rate case resolution approved by the City Council, effective withCouncil. See Note 2 to the first billing cyclefinancial statements for further discussion of March 2016,the rate case resolution; and
an increase of $3.8 million in energy efficiency costs.

The increase was partially offset by:

a decrease of $2.4 million in gas operations costs primarily due to the deferral in 2020 of certain gas infrastructure replacement program costs as a result of the 2018 combined rate case resolution. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate case resolution; and

a decrease of $2.2 million primarily due to contract costs in 2019 related to initiatives to explore new customer products and services.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service.

377
387

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



relatedOther regulatory charges - net include regulatory credits recorded in the first quarter 2020 to the purchase of Power Block 1reflect compliance with terms of the Union Power Station. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

The net gas revenue variance is primarily due to the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to a decrease of 112 GWh, or 2%, in billed electricity usage, partially offset2018 combined rate case resolution approved by the effect of favorable weather on commercial sales and a 2% increaseCity Council in the average number of electric customers.
Other Income Statement Variances

2017 Compared to 2016

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $7.9 million in fossil-fueled generation expenses primarily due to lower outage costs at Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station in 2017 as compared to 2016, the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3 effective May 2016, and asbestos loss provisions in 2016;
a decrease of $4.5 million in other loss provisions; and
a decrease of $2.8 million due to lower write-offs of uncollectible customer accounts.

The decrease was partially offset by:

an increase of $4 million in distribution expenses primarily due to higher labor costs, including contract labor, and higher vegetation maintenance costs; and
an increase of $1.3 million in energy efficiency costs.

Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to an increase in ad valorem taxes and higher local franchise taxes. Ad valorem taxes increased primarily due to higher assessments, including the assessment of Arkansas ad valorem taxes on the Union Power Station beginning in 2017. Local franchise taxes increased primarily due to higher electric retail revenues in 2017 as compared to 2016.

Other income increased primarily due to a decrease in charitable contributions made in 2017 as compared to 2016.

2016 Compared to 2015

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $6.1 million due to lower transmission equalization expenses, as allocated under the System Agreement as compared to the same period in 2015 primarily due to the termination of the System Agreement. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion on the System Agreement termination;
a decrease of $4.4 million due to the cessation of storm damage provisions in August 2015.February 2020. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of storm cost recovery; andthe rate case resolution.
a decrease of $3.1 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to a decrease in net periodic pension and other postretirement benefits costs as a result of an increase in the discount rate used to value the benefit liabilities and a refinement in the approach used to estimate the service cost and interest cost components of pension and other postretirement costs. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for further discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit costs.

378

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


The decrease was partially offset by:

an increase of $5.7 million in fossil-fueled generation expenses primarily due to an increase as a result of the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station in March 2016, partially offset by a decrease as a result of the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3 effective May 2016.  See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase;
an increase of $3.1 million in loss provisions; and
an increase of $2.8 million due to higher write-offs of uncollectible customer accounts in 2016 as compared to 2015.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station in March 2016, partially offset by the retirement of Michoud Units 2 and 3 effective May 2016.

Interest expense increased primarily due to the issuance of $110of:

a $70 million term loan at 3.0% in December 2019;
$78 million of 5.50%3.00% Series first mortgage bonds in March 20162020; and
$62 million of 3.75% Series mortgage bonds in March 2020.

The effective income tax rates were (9.3%) for 2020 and 0.4% for 2019. The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of 21% for 2020 was primarily due to the amortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes and the issuancecompletion of $98.7 millionthe 2014-2015 IRS audit effectively settling the tax positions for those years. The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the federal statutory rate of storm cost recovery bonds in July 2015.21% for 2019 was primarily due to the amortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. See Note 5Notes 2 and 3 to the financial statements for details on long-term debt.

Other income decreased primarily due to an increase in charitable contributions made in 2016 as compared to 2015.
Income Taxes

The effective income tax rates for 2017, 2016,a discussion of the effects and 2015 were 42.8%, 37.0%regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and 35.9%, respectively.Jobs Act. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 35%21% to the effective income tax rates.


Income Tax Legislation2019 Compared to 2018


See the Income Tax LegislationMANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Results of Operationssectionin Item 7 of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and AnalysisNew Orleans’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal income tax legislation enacted in December 2017. Note 3 to the financial statements contains additional discussion of the effect of the Act on 2017 results of operations for 2019 compared to 2018.

Liquidity and financial position, the provisions of the Act, and the uncertainties associated with accountingCapital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the Act,years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and Note 22018 were as follows:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period$6,017 $19,677 $32,741 
Net cash provided by (used in):   
Operating activities64,024 115,604 171,778 
Investing activities(220,845)(204,310)(207,616)
Financing activities150,830 75,046 22,774 
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents(5,991)(13,660)(13,064)
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$26 $6,017 $19,677 

2020 Compared to 2019

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $51.6 million in 2020 primarily due to:

lower collections of receivables from customers, in part due to the financial statements discusses proceedings commenced or other responses by Entergy’s regulators to COVID-19 pandemic;
the Act.


timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs; and
379
388

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 were as follows:
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
$103,068
 
$88,876
 
$42,389
      
Net cash provided by (used in): 
  
  
Operating activities127,797
 205,211
 105,068
Investing activities(109,500) (322,681) (173,460)
Financing activities(88,624) 131,662
 114,879
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents(70,327)
14,192

46,487
      
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
$32,741


$103,068


$88,876

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $77.4income tax payments of $3.4 million made in 2017 primarily due2020 compared to a decrease of $77.3 million in income tax refunds of $5.3 million received in 2017 compared to 2016 and the timing of collections from customers and payments to vendors. Entergy New Orleans had income tax refunds in 2017 and 20162019, each in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement. The 2016 income tax refunds resulted primarily from deductible temporary differences. the utilization of Entergy New Orleans’s net operating loss.

The decrease was partially offset by an increase due to the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs.payments to vendors.

Net cash flow provided by operating activities increased $100.1 million in 2016 primarily due to income tax refunds of $86 million in 2016 as compared to income tax payments of $8.1 million in 2015. Entergy New Orleans had income tax refunds in 2016 and income tax payments in 2015 in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement. The 2016 income tax refunds resulted primarily from deductible temporary differences.


Investing Activities

Net cash flow used in investing activities decreased $213.2increased $16.5 million in 20172020 primarily due to:

an increase of $12.4 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to investment in the purchasereliability and infrastructure of Power Block 1Entergy New Orleans’s distribution system, including increased spending on advanced metering infrastructure;
money pool activity;
an increase of the Union Power Station for approximately $237$10.8 million in March 2016.storm spending in 2020, primarily due to Hurricane Zeta restoration efforts. See Note 14 to the financial statementsHurricane Zeta” above for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase. The decrease was partially offset by hurricane restoration efforts; and
an increase of $16.7$5.1 million in distributionfacilities construction expenditures primarily due to a higher scope of work performed in 2017 as compared to 2016.2020.


Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $149.2 million in 2016 primarily due to the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station for approximately $237 million in March 2016. The increase was partially offset by by:

a depositdecrease of $63.9$16.2 million intoin non-nuclear generation construction expenditures primarily due to lower spending in 2020 on the storm reserve escrow account in July 2015 and money pool activity. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the UnionNew Orleans Power Station purchase. See Note 5project, partially offset by higher spending in 2020 on the New Orleans Solar Station project; and
a decrease of $7.5 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to lower spending in 2020 on the financial statements for a discussion of the issuance in July 2015 of securitization bonds to recover storm costs.New Orleans Power Station project.


Decreases in Entergy New Orleans’s receivable from the money pool are a source of cash flow, and Entergy New Orleans’s receivable from the money pool decreased $1.6$5.2 million in 20162020 compared to increasing $15.4decreasing $16.8 million in 2015.2019. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowingsborrowings.


Financing Activities

Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $75.8 million primarily due to a capital contribution received from Entergy Corporation of $60 million in November 2020 in order to maintain Entergy New Orleans’s capital structure and money pool activity.

Increases in Entergy New Orleans’s payable to the money pool are a source of cash flow, and Entergy New Orleans’s payable to the money pool increased $10.2 million in 2020.

2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Cash Flow” in Item 7 of Entergy New Orleans’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2019 compared to 2018.

380
389

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Capital Structure
Financing Activities


Entergy New Orleans’s financing activities used $88.6 million of cash in 2017 compareddebt to providing $131.7 million in 2016 primarily due to the following activity:

the issuance of $110 million of 5.50% Series first mortgage bonds in March 2016;
an increase of $55.5 million in common equity distributions in 2017 as compared to 2016. Common equity distributions in 2017 increased primarily as a result of Entergy New Orleans’s cash position in excess of its working capital requirements. There were no common equity distributions in first quarter 2016 in anticipation of the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station in March 2016;
a decrease of $27.8 million in capital contributions received from Entergy Corporation in 2017 compared to 2016. The 2017 contribution was made in consideration of Entergy New Orleans’s upcoming capital requirements. The 2016 contribution was made in anticipation of Entergy New Orleans’s purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station; and
the redemptions of $7.8 million of 4.75% Series preferred stock, $6 million of 5.56% Series preferred stock, and $6 million of 4.36% Series preferred stock in 2017 in connection with the internal restructuring, as discussed above.

See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $16.8 million in 2016 primarily due to:

the purchase of Entergy Louisiana’s Algiers assets in September 2015. The cash portion of the purchaseratio is reflected as a repayment of a long-term payable due to Entergy Louisiana in the cash flow statement. See Note 2 to the financial statements and “Algiers Asset Transfer” below for further discussion of the Algiers asset transfer and accounting for the transaction;
the issuance of $110 million of 5.50% Series first mortgage bonds in March 2016; and
the issuance of $85 million of 4% Series first mortgage bonds in May 2016. Entergy New Orleans used the proceeds to pay, prior to maturity, its $33.271 million of 5.6% Series first mortgage bonds due September 2024 and to pay, prior to maturity, its $37.772 million of 5.65% Series first mortgage bonds due September 2029.

The increase was offset by:

the issuance of $98.7 million of storm costs recovery bonds in July 2015;
a $47.8 million capital contribution received from Entergy Corporation in 2016 as compared to an $87.5 million capital contribution received from Entergy Corporation in 2015, both in anticipation of Entergy New Orleans’s purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station; and
an increase of $11.5 million in common equity distributions in 2016. Common equity distributions were lower in 2015 in anticipation of the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station.
See Note 5 to the financial statements for more details on long-term debt.


381

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Capital Structure

Entergy New Orleans’s capitalization is balanced between equity and debt as shown in the following table. The increasedecrease in the debt to capital ratio is primarily due to an increase in equity resulting from a $60 million capital contribution received from Entergy Corporation in 2020 and net income, partially offset by the redemptionsnet issuance of preferred stocklong-term debt in 2017.2020. 
December 31,
2020
December 31,
2019
Debt to capital51.5 %53.1 %
Effect of excluding securitization bonds(1.6 %)(2.4 %)
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)49.9 %50.7 %
Effect of subtracting cash— %(0.3 %)
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)49.9 %50.4 %
 December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
Debt to capital51.3% 50.1%
Effect of excluding securitization bonds(4.7%) (5.2%)
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)46.6% 44.9%
Effect of subtracting cash(2.4%) (8.0%)
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)44.2% 36.9%


(a) Calculation excludes the securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy New Orleans.


Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents. Debt consists of short-term borrowings, finance lease obligations, long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion, and the long-term payable due to Entergy Louisiana.an associated company. Capital consists of debt preferred stock without sinking fund, and common equity. Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents. Entergy New Orleans uses the debt to capital ratios excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes they provide useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy New Orleans’s financial condition because the securitization bonds are non-recourse to Entergy New Orleans, as more fully described in Note 5 to the financial statements. Entergy New Orleans also uses the net debt to net capital ratio excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy New Orleans’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy New Orleans’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.


Entergy New Orleans seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings.  To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a dividend,distribution, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the targeted capital structure.  To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy New Orleans may issue incremental debt or reduce dividends,distributions, or both, to maintain its targeted capital structure.  In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as financing of large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing dividends,distributions, Entergy New Orleans may receive equity contributions to maintain the targetedits capital structure.


Uses of Capital


Entergy New Orleans requires capital resources for:


construction and other capital investments;
working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel and purchased power costs;
debt maturities or retirements; and
distribution and interest payments.



382
390

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Following are the amounts of Entergy New Orleans’s planned construction and other capital investments.
 202120222023
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment: 
Generation$10 $15 $5 
Transmission20 25 20 
Distribution90 125 120 
Utility Support20 15 10 
Total$140 $180 $155 
 2018 2019 2020
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:     
Generation
$115
 
$80
 
$15
Transmission15
 10
 5
Distribution80
 85
 80
Utility Support20
 15
 15
Total
$230
 
$190
 
$115


In addition to the planned spending in the table above, Entergy New Orleans also expects to pay for $25 million of capital investments in 2021 related to Hurricane Zeta restoration work that have been accrued as of December 31, 2020.

Following are the amounts of Entergy New Orleans’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 20212022-20232024-2025After 2025Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)$37 $240 $119 $686 $1,082 
Operating leases (b)$2 $2 $1 $1 $6 
Finance leases (b)$1 $1 $1 $1 $4 
Purchase obligations (c)$217 $438 $419 $3,287 $4,361 
 2018 2019-2020 2021-2022 After 2022 Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)
$31
 
$87
 
$59
 
$674
 
$851
Operating leases
$2
 
$3
 
$1
 
$2
 
$8
Purchase obligations (b)
$245
 
$480
 
$463
 
$3,669
 
$4,857


(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy New Orleans, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which is discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements.

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.
(c)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy New Orleans, almost all of the total consists of unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations, including its obligations under the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which is discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements.

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, Entergy New Orleans currently expects to contribute approximately $7.3$5.4 million to its qualified pension plan and approximately $3.7 million$175 thousand to other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2018,2021, although the 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021. See “Critical Accounting Estimates - Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.


Also in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy New Orleans has $238.2$187.6 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes and payments for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.


In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy New Orleans includes specific investments such as the New Orleans Power Station discussed below; transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to enhance reliability and improve service to customers, including investment to support advanced metering;meters and related investments; resource planning, including potential generation and renewables projects; system improvements; software and security; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring,
391

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital. Management provides more information on long-term debt and preferred stock maturities in Notes 5 and 6 to the financial statements.


As a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, Entergy New Orleans pays distributions from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.



383

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


New Orleans Power Station

In June 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking a public interest determination and authorization to construct the New Orleans Power Station, a 226 MW advanced combustion turbine in New Orleans, Louisiana, at the site of the existing Michoud generating facility, which was retired effective May 31, 2016. In January 2017 several intervenors filed testimony opposing the construction of the New Orleans Power Station on various grounds. In July 2017, Entergy New Orleans submitted a supplemental and amending application to the City Council seeking approval to construct either the originally proposed 226 MW advanced combustion turbine, or alternatively, a 128 MW unit composed of natural gas-fired reciprocating engines and a related cost recovery plan. The application included an updated cost estimate of $232 million for the 226 MW advanced combustion turbine. The cost estimate for the alternative 128 MW unit is $210 million. In addition, the application renewed the commitment to pursue up to 100 MW of renewable resources to serve New Orleans. In testimony filed subsequent to Entergy New Orleans’s supplemental and amending application, several intervenors oppose City Council approval of either alternative, while the City Council advisors and one intervenor support the smaller alternative. A contested hearing was held in December 2017 and post-hearing briefs were filed in January 2018. In February 2018 the City Council Utility Committee adopted a resolution approving construction of the 128 MW unit. The full City Council is expected to vote on the resolution in March 2018. The commercial operation date is dependent on the alternative selected by the City Council and the receipt of other permits and approvals.

Gas Infrastructure Rebuild Plan


In September 2016, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council a request for authorization for Entergy New Orleans to proceed with annual incremental capital funding of $12.5 million for its gas infrastructure rebuild plan, which would replace of all of Entergy New Orleans’s low pressure cast iron, steel, and vintage plastic pipe over a ten-year period commencing in 2017.  Entergy New Orleans also proposed that recovery of the investment to fund its gas infrastructure replacement plan be determined in connection with its next base rate case, which is anticipated to be filed in 2018.case.  The City Council has authorized Entergy New Orleans to proceed with its replacement plans at the requested pace until such time that rates resulting from the anticipated 2018 rate case are implemented (approximately 13 months after filing).  As a result of the anticipated 2018 rate case, the City Council may establish new overall gas base rates to allow Entergy New Orleans to continue to recover these replacement costs.  The City Council hasand established a schedule for proceedings in advance of the rate case intended to provide an opportunity for evaluation of the gas infrastructure replacement plan that would best serve the public interest and the effect on customers of the approval of any such plan. In the course of that proceeding, the City Council’s advisors submitted pre-filed testimony recommending that Entergy New Orleans be allowed to continue with its condition-based approach to gas pipeline replacement to replace approximately 238 miles of low pressure pipe at a rate of approximately 25 miles per year. The City Council’s advisors also recommended that Entergy New Orleans be required to adhere to certain reporting requirements and recognized the need to address the sustained level of investment in gas infrastructure on customer bills. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed rebuttal testimony suggesting that its recovery of future investment and customer effects would be addressed in the rate case that Entergy New Orleans was required to file in July 2018. The procedural schedule was suspended in order to allow for resolution in the rate case proceeding. As a result of the rate case, the City Council approved the planned gas rebuild expenditures through 2019, but rejected Entergy New Orleans’s proposed gas infrastructure rider. In April 2020, Entergy New Orleans submitted its gas infrastructure rebuild plan to the City Council, which maintained the previously proposed timeline and cost estimates, but included measures to spread out the cost impact to customers of the program.


Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)Renewables


In October 2016,July 2018, Entergy New Orleans filed an application seeking a finding fromwith the City Council requesting approval of three utility-scale solar projects totaling 90 MW.  If approved, the resource additions will allow Entergy New Orleans to make significant progress towards meeting its voluntary commitment to the City Council to add up to 100 MW of renewable energy resources.  The three projects include constructing a self-build solar plant in Orleans Parish with an output of 20 MW, acquiring a 50 MW solar facility in Washington Parish through a build-own-transfer acquisition, and procuring 20 MW of solar power from a project to be built in St. James Parish through a power purchase agreement. In December 2018 the City Council advisors requested that Entergy New Orleans’s deploymentOrleans pursue alternative deal structures for the Washington Parish project and attempt to reduce costs for the 20 MW New Orleans Solar Station. As a result of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure issettlement discussions, in the public interest.March 2019, Entergy New Orleans proposedrevised its application to deploy advanced metersconvert the build-own transfer acquisition of the 50 MW facility in Washington Parish to a power purchase agreement. In June 2019 the parties to the proceeding executed a stipulated settlement term sheet, which recommends that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems.  AMI is intended to serve as the foundation ofCity Council approve Entergy New Orleans’s modernized power grid.  The filing included an estimaterevised application as to all three projects. In July 2019 the City Council approved the stipulated settlement. Commercial operation of implementation costs for AMI of $75 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, andthe 20 MW New Orleans Solar Station commenced in December 2020. Entergy New Orleans provided a cost/benefit analysis showing that its combined electric and gas AMI deployment is expected to produce a nominal net benefit to customers of $101 million.  Entergy New Orleans also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $21 million at December 31, 2015, of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates.  Entergy New Orleans proposed a 15-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expectedexpects to begin in 2019.  Deploymentreceiving power under the 50 MW Iris Solar and the 20 MW St. James Solar power purchase agreements by third quarter 2021.

Sources of the information technology infrastructure began in 2017 and deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018.  Entergy New Orleans proposed to recover the cost of AMI through the implementation of a customer charge, net of certain benefits, phased in over the period 2019 through 2022.  The City Council’s advisors filed testimony in May 2017 recommending the adoption of AMI subject to certain modifications, including the denial of Capital

Entergy New Orleans’s proposed customer charge as a cost recovery mechanism. In January 2018 a settlement was reached betweensources to meet its capital requirements include:


internally generated funds;
384
392

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



the City Council’s advisors and Entergy New Orleans. In February 2018 the City Council approved the settlement, which deferred cost recovery to the 2018 Entergy New Orleans rate case, but also stated that an adjustment for 2018-2019 AMI costs can be filed in the rate case and that, for all subsequent AMI costs, the mechanism to be approved in the 2018 rate case will allow for the timely recovery of such costs.

Sources of Capital

Entergy New Orleans’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
storm reserve escrow accounts;
debt and preferred membership interest issuances;issuances, including debt issuances to refund or retire currently outstanding or maturing indebtedness;
capital contributions; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.


Entergy New Orleans may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest rates are favorable.


All debt and common and preferred membership interest issuances by Entergy New Orleans require prior regulatory approval. Debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its bond indentures and other agreements. Entergy New Orleans has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.

Entergy New Orleans’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
2020201920182017
(In Thousands)
($10,190)$5,191$22,016$12,723
2017 2016 2015 2014
(In Thousands)
$12,723 $14,215 $15,794 $442


See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.


Entergy New Orleans has a credit facility in the amount of $25 million scheduled to expire in November 2018.2021. The credit facility allows Entergy New Orleans to issueincludes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against $10 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, 2017,2020, there were no cash borrowings and aan $0.8 million letter of credit was outstanding under the facility. In addition, Entergy New Orleans is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO.  As of December 31, 2017,2020, a $1.4$1 million letter of credit was outstanding under Entergy New Orleans’s letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the credit facilities.


Entergy New Orleans obtained authorization from the FERC through October 2019July 2022 for short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $150 million at any time outstanding and long-term borrowings and securities issuances. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s short-term borrowing limits. The long-term securities issuances of Entergy New Orleans are limited to amounts authorized not only by the FERC, but also by the City Council, and the current City Council authorization extends through June 2018.July 2022.


State and Local Rate Regulation


The rates that Entergy New Orleans charges for electricity and natural gas significantly influence its financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. Entergy New Orleans is regulated and the rates charged to its customers are determined in regulatory proceedings. A governmental agency, the City Council, is primarily responsible for approval of the rates charged to customers.


Retail Rates


See “Algiers Asset Transfer” belowEnergy Efficiency

In December 2019, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking approval of an implementation plan for discussionthe Energy Smart program from April 2020 through December 2022. Entergy New Orleans proposed to recover the costs of the Algiers asset transfer. As a provision of the settlement agreementprogram through mechanisms previously approved by the City Council in May 2015 providing for the Algiers asset transfer, it was agreed that, with limited exceptions, no action may be taken with respect to Entergy New Orleans’s base rates until rates are implemented

385
393

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



or through the energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which was approved in the 2018 combined rate case resolution. In January 2020 the City Council’s advisors recommended that, beginning with Program Year 10, the City Council allow Entergy New Orleans to earn a utility performance incentive of 7% of Energy Smart costs for each year in which Entergy New Orleans achieves 100% of the City Council’s savings targets for Energy Smart. In February 2020 the City Council approved Entergy New Orleans’s application.
from
2018 Base Rate Case

In September 2018, Entergy New Orleans filed an electric and gas base rate case with the City Council. The filing requested a 10.5% return on equity for electric operations with opportunity to earn a 10.75% return on equity through a performance adder provision of the electric formula rate plan in subsequent years under a formula rate plan and requested a 10.75% return on equity for gas operations. The proposed electric rates in the revised filing reflect a net reduction of $20.3 million. The reduction in electric rates includes a base rate case that must be filedincrease of $135.2 million, of which $131.5 million is associated with moving costs currently collected through fuel and other riders into base rates, plus a request for itsan advanced metering surcharge to recover $7.1 million associated with advanced metering infrastructure, offset by a net decrease of $31.1 million related to fuel and other riders. The filing also included a proposed gas rate decrease of $142 thousand. Entergy New Orleans’s rates reflected the inclusion of federal income tax reductions due to the Tax Act and the provisions of a previously-approved agreement in principle determining how the benefits of the Tax Act would flow. Entergy New Orleans included cost of service studies for electric and gas operations in 2018. This provision eliminated the formula rate plan applicable to Algiers operations. The limited exceptions included continued implementation of the then-remaining two years of the four-year phased-in rate increase for the Algiers areatwelve months ended December 31, 2017 and certain exceptional cost increases or decreasesthe projected twelve months ending December 31, 2018. In addition, Entergy New Orleans included capital additions expected to be placed into service for the period through December 31, 2019. Entergy New Orleans based its request for a change in rates on the base revenue requirement. An additional provision of the settlement agreement allowed for continued recovery ofprojected twelve months ending December 31, 2018.

The filing’s major provisions included: (1) a new electric rate structure, which realigns the revenue requirement associated with the capacity and energylong-term service agreement expense from Ninemile 6 received by Entergy New Orleans under a power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana (Algiers PPA). The settlement authorized Entergy New Orleanscertain existing riders to recover the remainingbase revenue, requirement related to the Algiers PPA through base rates charged to Algiers customers. The settlement also providedprovides for continued implementation of the Algiers MISO recovery rider.

In addition to the Algiers PPA, Entergy New Orleans has a separate power purchase agreement with Entergy Louisiana for 20% of the capacity and energy from Ninemile 6 (Ninemile PPA), which commenced operation in December 2014. Initially, recovery of the non-fuel costs associated with the Ninemile PPA was authorized through a special Ninemile 6 rider billed only to Entergy New Orleans customers outside of Algiers.

In August 2015, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to proceed with the purchase of Union Power Block 1, with an expected base purchase price of approximately $237 million, subject to adjustments, and seeking approval of the recovery of the associated costs.cost of advanced metering infrastructure, and partially blends rates for Entergy New Orleans’s customers residing in Algiers with customers residing in the remainder of Orleans Parish through a three-year phase-in; (2) contemporaneous cost recovery riders for investments in energy efficiency/demand response, incremental changes in capacity/long-term service agreement costs, grid modernization investment, and gas infrastructure replacement investment; and (3) formula rate plans for both electric and gas operations. In November 2015February 2019 the City Council’s advisors and several intervenors filed testimony in response to Entergy New Orleans’s application. The City Council’s advisors recommended, among other things, overall rate reductions of approximately $33 million in electric rates and $3.8 million in gas rates. Certain intervenors recommended overall rate reductions of up to approximately $49 million in electric rates and $5 million in gas rates. An evidentiary hearing was held in June 2019, and the record and post-hearing briefs were submitted in July 2019.

In October 2019 the City Council’s Utility Committee approved a resolution for a change in electric and gas rates for consideration by the full City Council issued written resolutionsthat included a 9.35% return on common equity, an equity ratio of the lesser of 50% or Entergy New Orleans’s actual equity ratio, and an order approving an agreementa total reduction in principle betweenrevenues that Entergy New Orleans andinitially estimated to be approximately $39 million ($36 million electric; $3 million gas). At its November 7, 2019 meeting, the full City Council advisors providingapproved the resolution that had previously been approved by the purchase of Union Power Block 1 and related assets byCity Council’s Utility Committee. Based on the approved resolution, in the fourth quarter 2019 Entergy New Orleans is prudent and inrecorded an accrual of $10 million that reflects the public interest. The City Council authorized expansionestimate of the terms of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery riderrevenue billed in 2019 to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6, the revenue requirement associated with the purchase of Power Block 1 of the Union Power Station, and a creditbe refunded to customers of $400 thousand monthly beginning June 2016 in recognition of2020 based on an August 2019 effective date for the decrease in other operation and maintenance expenses that would result with the deactivation of Michoud Units 2 and 3. In March 2016,rate decrease. Entergy New Orleans purchased Power Block 1also recorded a total of the Union Power Station$12 million in regulatory assets for approximately $237 millionrate case costs and initiated recovery of theseinformation technology costs associated with March 2016 bills. In July 2016,integrating Algiers customers with Entergy New Orleans’s legacy system and records. Entergy New Orleans and the City Council Utility Committee agreed to a temporary increase in the Michoud credit to customers to a total of $1.4 million monthly for August 2016 through December 2016.

A 2008 rate case settlement included $3.1 million per year in electric rates to fund the Energy Smart energy efficiency programs.  The rate settlement provided an incentive for Entergy New Orleans to meet or exceed energy savings targets set by the City Council and provided a mechanism for Entergy New Orleanswill also be allowed to recover lost contribution to fixed costs associated with the energy savings generated from the energy efficiency programs. In January 2015 the City Council approved funding for the Energy Smart program from April 2015 through March 2017 using the remainder of the approximately $12.8$10 million of 2014 rough production cost equalization funds, with any remainingretired general plant costs being recovered through the fuel adjustment clause. This funding methodology was modified in November 2015 when the City Councilover a 20-year period.

The resolution directed Entergy New Orleans to usesubmit a combinationcompliance filing within 30 days of guaranteed customer savings relatedthe date of the resolution to facilitate the eventual implementation of rates, including all necessary calculations and conforming rate schedules and riders. The electric formula rate plan rider includes, among other things, 1) a prior agreement with the City Council and rough production cost equalization funds to cover program costs prior to recovering any costs through the fuel adjustment clause. In April 2017 the City Council approved an implementation planprovision for the Energy Smart program from April 2017 through December 2019. The City Council directed that the $11.8 million balance reported for Energy Smart funds be used to continue funding the program for Entergy New Orleans’s legacy customers and that the Energy Smart Algiers program continue to be funded through the Algiers fuel adjustment clause, until additional customer funding is required for the legacy customers. In September 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed a supplemental plan and proposed several options for an interim cost recovery mechanism necessary to recover program costs during the period between when existing funds directed to Energy Smart programs are depleted (estimated to be June 2018) and when new rates from the anticipated 2018 combined rate case, which will include a cost recovery mechanism for Energy Smart funding, take effect (estimated to be August 2019). Entergy New Orleans requested that the City Council approve a cost recovery mechanism prior to June 2018. In December 2017 the City Council approved an energy efficiency cost recovery rider as an interim funding mechanism for Energy Smart, subject to verification that no additional funding sources exist.


386
394

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



forward-looking adjustments to include known and measurable changes realized up to 12 months after the evaluation period; 2) a decoupling mechanism; and 3) recognition that Entergy New Orleans is authorized to make an in-service adjustment to the formula rate plan to include the non-fuel cost of the New Orleans Power Station in rates, unless the two pending appeals in the New Orleans Power Station proceeding have not concluded. Under this circumstance, Entergy New Orleans shall be permitted to defer the New Orleans Power Station non-fuel costs, including the cost of capital, until Entergy New Orleans commences non-fuel cost recovery. After taking into account the requirements for submission of the compliance filing, the total annual revenue requirement reduction required by the resolution was refined to approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; $3 million gas). In January 2020 the City Council’s advisors found that the rates calculated by Entergy New Orleans and reflected in the December 2019 compliance filing should be implemented, except with respect to the City Council-approved energy efficiency cost recovery rider, which rider calculation should take into account events to be determined by the City Council in the future. Also in response to the resolution, Entergy New Orleans filed timely a petition for appeal and judicial review and for stay of or injunctive relief alleging that the resolution is unlawful in failing to produce just and reasonable rates. A hearing on the requested injunction was scheduled in Civil District Court for February 2020, but by joint motion of the City Council and Entergy New Orleans, the Civil District Court issued an order for a limited remand to the City Council to consider a potential agreement in principle/stipulation at its February 20, 2020 meeting. On February 17, 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed with the City Council an agreement in principle between Entergy New Orleans and the City Council’s advisors. On February 20, 2020, the City Council voted to approve the proposed agreement in principle and issued a resolution modifying the required treatment of certain accumulated deferred income taxes. As a result of the agreement in principle, the total annual revenue requirement reduction will be approximately $45 million ($42 million electric, including $29 million in rider reductions; and $3 million gas). Entergy New Orleans fully implemented the new rates in April 2020. In January 2021, pursuant to the agreement in principle approved by the City Council in October 2020, Entergy New Orleans filed with Civil District Court a motion seeking to dismiss its petition for judicial review of the City Council’s resolution in the 2018 combined rate case.

Commercial operation of the New Orleans Power Station commenced in May 2020. In accordance with the City Council resolution issued in the 2018 base rate case proceeding, Entergy New Orleans had been deferring the New Orleans Power Station non-fuel costs pending the conclusion of the appellate proceedings. In October 2020 the Louisiana Supreme Court denied all writ applications relating to the New Orleans Power Station. With those denials, Entergy New Orleans began recovering New Orleans Power Station costs in rates in November 2020. As of December 31, 2020 the regulatory asset for the deferral of New Orleans Power Station non-fuel costs was $5 million. Entergy New Orleans is recovering the costs over a five-year period that began in November 2020. In December 2020 the Alliance for Affordable Energy and Sierra Club filed a joint motion with the City Council to institute a prudence review to investigate the costs of the New Orleans Power Station. On January 28, 2021, the City Council passed a resolution giving parties 30 days to respond to the motion. Entergy New Orleans plans to respond to the motion.

2020 Formula Rate Plan Filing

Entergy New Orleans’s first annual filing under the three-year formula rate plan approved by the City Council in November 2019 was originally due to be filed in April 2020. The authorized return on equity under the approved three-year formula rate plan is 9.35% for both electric and gas operations. The City Council approved several extensions of the deadline to allow additional time to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the New Orleans community, Entergy New Orleans customers, and Entergy New Orleans itself. In October 2020 the City Council approved an agreement in principle filed by Entergy New Orleans that results in Entergy New Orleans foregoing its 2020 formula rate plan filing and shifting the three-year formula rate plan to filings in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Key provisions of the agreement in principle include: changing the lower of actual equity ratio or 50% equity ratio approved in the rate case to a hypothetical capital structure of 51% equity and 49% debt for the duration of the three-year formula rate plan; changing the 2% depreciation rate for the New Orleans Power Station approved in the rate case to 3%; retention of over-recovery of $2.2 million in rider revenues; recovery of $1.4 million of certain rate
395

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

case expenses outside of the earnings band; recovery of the New Orleans Solar Station costs upon commercial operation; and Entergy New Orleans’s dismissal of its 2018 rate case appeal.

COVID-19 Orders

In March 2020, Entergy New Orleans voluntarily suspended customer disconnections for non-payment of utility bills through May 2020. Subsequently, the City Council ordered that the moratorium be extended to August 1, 2020. In May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. In January 2021, Entergy New Orleans resumed disconnecting service to commercial and small business customers with past-due balances that have not made payment arrangements. In February 2021 the City Council adopted a resolution suspending residential customer disconnections for non-payment of utility bills and suspending the assessment and accumulation of late fees on residential customers with past-due balances through May 15, 2021. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy New Orleans recorded a regulatory asset of $14.3 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

In June 2020 the City Council established the City Council Cares Program and directed Entergy New Orleans to use the approximately $7 million refund received from the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales FERC proceeding, currently being held in escrow, and approximately $15 million of non-securitized storm reserves to fund this program, which is intended to provide temporary bill relief to customers who become unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The program became effective July 1, 2020, and offers qualifying residential customers bill credits of $100 per month for up to four months, for a maximum of $400 in residential customer bill credits. As of December 31, 2020, credits of $3.4 million have been applied to customer bills under the City Council Cares Program.

Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery


Entergy New Orleans’s electric rate schedules include a fuel adjustment tariff designed to reflect no more than targeted fuel and purchased power costs, adjusted by a surcharge or credit for deferred fuel expense arising from the monthly reconciliation of actual fuel and purchased power costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges.


Due to higher fuel costs associated in part with the extended Grand Gulf outage and the partially simultaneous Union Power Block 1 planned outage, for the December 2016, January 2017, and February 2017 billing months, the City Council authorized Entergy New Orleans to cap the fuel adjustment charge billed to customers at $0.035 per kWh and to defer billing of all fuel costs in excess of the capped amount by including such costs in the over- or under-recovery account.

Due to higher fuel costs for the operating month of January 2018 resulting in part from recent cold weather, higher Henry Hub prices, and an increase in total fuel and purchased power costs associated in part with certain plant outages, Entergy New Orleans has proposed to cap the fuel adjustment charge to be billed in March 2018 to non-transmission Entergy New Orleans legacy customers and Entergy New Orleans Algiers customers at $0.035323 per kWh and $0.025446 per kWh, respectively. Entergy New Orleans has also proposed to cap the fuel adjustment charge to be billed in March 2018 for Entergy New Orleans legacy transmission customers at $0.034609 per kWh and to defer billing of all fuel costs in excess of the capped amount by including such costs in the over- or under-recovery account.

Algiers Asset Transfer

In October 2014, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking authorization to undertake a transaction that would result in the transfer from Entergy Louisiana to Entergy New Orleans of certain assets that supported the provision of service to Entergy Louisiana’s customers in Algiers. In April 2015 the FERC issued an order approving the Algiers assets transfer. In May 2015 the parties filed a settlement agreement authorizing the Algiers assets transfer and the settlement agreement was approved by a City Council resolution in May 2015. On September 1, 2015, Entergy Louisiana transferred its Algiers assets to Entergy New Orleans for a purchase price of approximately $85 million. Entergy New Orleans paid Entergy Louisiana $59.6 million, including final true-ups, from available cash and issued a note payable to Entergy Louisiana in the amount of $25.5 million.

Show Cause Order


In July 2016 the City Council approved the issuance of a show cause order, which directed Entergy New Orleans to make a filing on or before September 29, 2016 to demonstrate the reasonableness of its actions or positions with regard to certain issues in four existing dockets that relate to Entergy New Orleans’s: (i) storm hardening proposal; (ii) 2015 integrated resource plan; (iii) gas infrastructure rebuild proposal; and (iv) proposed sizing of the New Orleans Power Station and its community outreach prior to the filing. In September 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed its response to the City Council’s show cause order. The City Council has not established any further procedural schedule with regard to this proceeding.


Reliability Investigation

In August 2017 the City Council established a docket to investigate the reliability of the Entergy New Orleans distribution system and to consider implementing certain reliability standards and possible financial penalties for not meeting any such standards. In April 2018 the City Council adopted a resolution directing Entergy New Orleans to demonstrate that it has been prudent in the management and maintenance of the reliability of its distribution system. The resolution also called for Entergy New Orleans to file a revised reliability plan addressing
396

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

the current state of its distribution system and proposing remedial measures for increasing reliability. In June 2018, Entergy New Orleans filed its response to the City Council’s resolution regarding the prudence of its management and maintenance of the reliability of its distribution system.  In July 2018, Entergy New Orleans filed its revised reliability plan discussing the various reliability programs that it uses to improve distribution system reliability and discussing generally the positive effect that advanced meter deployment and grid modernization can have on future reliability.  Entergy New Orleans has retained a national consulting firm with expertise in distribution system reliability to conduct a review of Entergy New Orleans’s distribution system reliability-related practices and procedures and to provide recommendations for improving distribution system reliability. The report was filed with the City Council in October 2018. The City Council also approved a resolution that opens a prudence investigation into whether Entergy New Orleans was imprudent for not acting sooner to address outages in New Orleans and whether fines should be imposed. In January 2019, Entergy New Orleans filed testimony in response to the prudence investigation and asserting that it had been prudent in managing system reliability. In April 2019 the City Council advisors filed comments and testimony asserting that Entergy New Orleans did not act prudently in maintaining and improving its distribution system reliability in recent years and recommending that a financial penalty in the range of $1.5 million to $2 million should be assessed.  Entergy New Orleans disagrees with the recommendation and submitted rebuttal testimony and rebuttal comments in June 2019. In November 2019 the City Council passed a resolution that penalized Entergy New Orleans $1 million for alleged imprudence in the maintenance of its distribution system. In December 2019, Entergy New Orleans filed suit in Louisiana state court seeking judicial review of the City Council’s resolution. Although the City Council evidentiary record has been lodged with the Civil District count, the court has not yet established a briefing schedule.

Renewable Portfolio Standard Rulemaking

In March 2019 the City Council initiated a rulemaking proceeding to consider whether to establish a renewable portfolio standard. The rulemaking will consider, among other issues, whether to adopt a renewable portfolio standard, whether such standard should be voluntary or mandatory, what kinds of technologies should qualify for inclusion in the rules, what level, if any, of renewable generation should be required, and whether penalties are an appropriate component of the proposed rules. Parties to the proceeding submitted initial comments in June 2019 and reply comments in July 2019. Entergy New Orleans recommends that the City Council adopt a voluntary clean energy standard of 70% of generation being clean energy by 2030, as so defined, which, in addition to renewable generation, would include nuclear, beneficial electrification, and demand-side management as compliant technologies. Several other industry leaders, academic researchers, and environmental advocates filed comments also supporting a clean energy standard. Other parties, including many representatives of the solar and wind industry, are recommending mandatory, renewables-only requirements of up to 100% renewable resources by 2040. In September 2019 the City Council advisors issued a report and recommendations, which also put forth three alternative rules for comment from the parties. Comments were submitted in October 2019 and replies were filed in November 2019. In March 2020 the City Council’s Utility Committee recommended a resolution for approval by the City Council that directed the City Council advisors to work toward development of a rule for enacting a Renewable and Clean Portfolio Standard. The four components of the Renewable and Clean Portfolio Standard that the City Council expressed a desire to implement are: (1) a mandatory requirement that Entergy New Orleans achieve 100% net zero carbon emissions by 2040; (2) reliance on renewable energy credits purchased without the associated energy for compliance with the standard being phased out over the ten-year period from 2040 to 2050; (3) no carbon-emitting resources in the portfolio of resources Entergy New Orleans uses to serve New Orleans by 2050; and (4) a mechanism to limit costs in any one plan year to no more than one percent of plan year total utility retail sales revenues. The City Council adopted the Utility Committee resolution in April 2020. The first technical meeting of the parties occurred in June 2020; a second technical meeting occurred in July 2020. In August 2020 the City Council advisors issued a final draft of the rules for review and comment from the parties before final rules are proposed for consideration by the City Council. Entergy New Orleans filed comments in September and October 2020. A City Council decision is expected in the first quarter 2021.

397

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Federal Regulation


See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation– Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.


387

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Nuclear Matters


See the “Nuclear Matters” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of nuclear matters.


Environmental Risks


Entergy New Orleans’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous solid wastes, and other environmental matters.  Management believes that Entergy New Orleans is in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted in “Regulation of Entergy’s Business - Environmental Regulation” in Part I, Item 1.  Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance costs cannot be precisely estimated.


Critical Accounting Estimates


The preparation of Entergy New Orleans’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to apply appropriate accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that can have a significant effect on reported financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.  Management has identified the following accounting policies and estimates as critical because they are based on assumptions and measurements that involve a high degree of uncertainty, and there is the potential for future changes in the assumptions and measurements that could produce estimates that would have a material impact on the presentation of Entergy New Orleans’s financial position or results of operations.


Utility Regulatory Accounting


See “Utility Regulatory Accounting” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of accounting for the effects of rate regulation.

Unbilled Revenue

See “Unbilled Revenue” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the unbilled revenue amounts.


Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments


See “Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the impairment of long-lived assets.


Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions


See “Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.


Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits


Entergy New Orleans’s qualified pension and other postretirement reported costs, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are impacted by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms.  See the “Qualified

Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy
388
398

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.  Because of the complexity of these calculations, the long-term nature of these obligations, and the importance of the assumptions utilized, Entergy’s estimate of these costs is a critical accounting estimate.


Cost Sensitivity


The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension cost and qualified projected benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Qualified Pension CostImpact on 2020 Projected Qualified Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$303$5,858
Rate of return on plan assets(0.25%)$388$—
Rate of increase in compensation0.25%$225$1,060
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Qualified Pension Cost Impact on 2017 Projected Qualified Benefit Obligation
    Increase/(Decrease)  
Discount rate (0.25%) $348 
$6,153
Rate of return on plan assets (0.25%) $399 
$—
Rate of increase in compensation 0.25% $159 
$729


The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Postretirement Benefit CostImpact on 2020 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$76$893
Health care cost trend0.25%$82$571
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Postretirement Benefit Cost Impact on 2017 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
    Increase/(Decrease)  
Discount rate (0.25%) 
($12) $1,406
Health care cost trend 0.25% 
$54
 $1,074


Each fluctuation above assumes that the other components of the calculation are held constant.


Costs and FundingEmployer Contributions


Total qualified pension cost for Entergy New Orleans in 20172020 was $5.1$6 million. Entergy New Orleans anticipates 20182021 qualified pension cost to be $5.8 million.  In 2016, Entergy New Orleans refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of qualified pension costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified pension costs by $1.7$5.9 million.  Entergy New Orleans contributed $9.9$4.6 million to its qualified pension plans in 20172020 and estimates 20182021 pension contributions will be approximately $7.3$5.4 million, although the 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021.


Total postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income for Entergy New Orleans in 20172020 was $2.5$4.9 million.  Entergy New Orleans expects 20182021 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income of approximately $3.7$6.4 million.  In 2016, Entergy New Orleans refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of other postretirement costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified other postretirement costs by $548 thousand.  Entergy New Orleans contributed $3.7 million$641 thousand to its other postretirement plans in 20172020 and estimates 20182021 contributions will be approximately $3.7 million.$175 thousand.



Other Contingencies
389

Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Federal Healthcare Legislation

See “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits -Federal Healthcare LegislationContingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of Federal Healthcare Legislation.

Other Contingencies

See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.


New Accounting Pronouncements


See “New Accounting Pronouncements” section of Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.

399


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




To the membersmember and Board of Directors of
Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries


Opinion on the Financial Statements


We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows, and changes in commonmember’s equity (pages 392402 through 396406 and applicable items in pages 5551 through 230)238), for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


Basis for Opinion


These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.


We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.


Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



Critical Audit Matter

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current-period audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Rate and Regulatory Matters— Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries — Refer to Note 2 to the financial statements

Critical Audit Matter Description

The Company is subject to rate regulation by the Council of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana (the “City Council”), which has jurisdiction with respect to the rates of electric companies in the City of New Orleans, Louisiana, and to wholesale rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Management has determined it meets the requirements under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America to prepare its financial statements applying the specialized rules to account for the effects of cost-based
400

rate regulation. Accounting for the economics of rate regulation impacts multiple financial statement line items and disclosures, such as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets and liabilities; income taxes; operating revenues; operation and maintenance expense; and depreciation and amortization expense.

The Company’s rates are subject to regulatory rate-setting processes and annual earnings oversight. Because the City Council and the FERC set the rates the Company is allowed to charge customers based on allowable costs, including a reasonable return on equity, the Company applies accounting standards that require the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation, including the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities. The Company assesses whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in applicable regulatory and political environments. While the Company has indicated it expects to recover costs from customers through regulated rates, there is a risk that the City Council and the FERC will not approve: (1) full recovery of the costs of providing utility service, or (2) full recovery of amounts invested in the utility business and a reasonable return on that investment.

We identified the impact of rate regulation as a critical audit matter due to the significant judgments made by management to support its assertions about impacted account balances and disclosures and the high degree of subjectivity involved in assessing the impact of future regulatory orders on the financial statements. Management judgments include assessing the likelihood of recovery in future rates of incurred costs and refunds to customers. Auditing management’s judgments regarding the outcome of future decisions by the City Council and the FERC, involved especially subjective judgment and specialized knowledge of accounting for rate regulation and the rate setting process.

How the Critical Audit Matter Was Addressed in the Audit

Our audit procedures related to the uncertainty of future decisions by the City Council and the FERC included the following, among others:

We tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the evaluation of the likelihood of (1) the recovery in future rates of costs incurred as property, plant, and equipment and deferred as regulatory assets, and (2) a refund or a future reduction in rates that should be reported as regulatory liabilities. We also tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the initial recognition of amounts as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets or liabilities; and the monitoring and evaluation of regulatory developments that may affect the likelihood of recovering costs in future rates or of a future reduction in rates.
We evaluated the Company’s disclosures related to the impacts of rate regulation, including the balances recorded and regulatory developments.
We read relevant regulatory orders issued by the City Council and the FERC for the Company and other public utilities, regulatory statutes, interpretations, procedural memorandums, filings made by intervenors, and other publicly available information to assess the likelihood of recovery in future rates or of a future reduction in rates based on precedents of the City Council’s and the FERC’s treatment of similar costs under similar circumstances. We evaluated the external information and compared to management’s recorded regulatory asset and liability balances for completeness.
For regulatory matters in process, we inspected the Company’s filings with the City Council and the FERC, including the base rate case filing, and considered the filings with the City Council and the FERC by intervenors that may impact the Company’s future rates, for any evidence that might contradict management’s assertions.
We obtained an analysis from management and support from internal and external legal counsel, as appropriate, regarding probability of recovery for regulatory assets or refund or future reduction in rates for regulatory liabilities not yet addressed in a regulatory order to assess management’s assertion that amounts are probable of recovery or a future reduction in rates.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 20182021



We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2001.




401
ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
       
OPERATING REVENUES      
Electric 
$631,744
 
$586,820
 
$584,322
Natural gas 84,326
 78,643
 87,124
TOTAL 716,070
 665,463
 671,446
       
OPERATING EXPENSES  
  
  
Operation and Maintenance:  
  
  
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale 111,082
 40,489
 96,307
Purchased power 282,178
 299,551
 277,851
Other operation and maintenance 109,270
 117,471
 119,087
Taxes other than income taxes 54,590
 48,078
 46,660
Depreciation and amortization 52,945
 51,737
 43,205
Other regulatory charges - net 10,889
 8,258
 3,366
TOTAL 620,954
 565,584
 586,476
       
OPERATING INCOME 95,116
 99,879
 84,970
       
OTHER INCOME  
  
  
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 2,418
 1,178
 1,404
Interest and investment income 707
 256
 73
Miscellaneous - net 24
 (3,144) 339
TOTAL 3,149
 (1,710) 1,816
       
INTEREST EXPENSE  
  
  
Interest expense 21,281
 21,061
 17,312
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction (847) (446) (641)
TOTAL 20,434
 20,615
 16,671
       
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES 77,831
 77,554
 70,115
       
Income taxes 33,278
 28,705
 25,190
       
NET INCOME 44,553
 48,849
 44,925
       
Preferred dividend requirements and other 841
 965
 965
       
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON EQUITY 
$43,712
 
$47,884
 
$43,960
       
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  




ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING REVENUES   
Electric$560,632 $594,417 $624,733 
Natural gas73,209 91,806 92,657 
TOTAL633,841 686,223 717,390 
OPERATING EXPENSES   
Operation and Maintenance:   
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale76,781 105,217 114,787 
Purchased power243,572 258,306 270,634 
Other operation and maintenance125,756 121,057 124,293 
Taxes other than income taxes57,454 55,270 56,141 
Depreciation and amortization64,012 56,072 55,930 
Other regulatory charges - net1,854 21,616 21,413 
TOTAL569,429 617,538 643,198 
OPERATING INCOME64,412 68,685 74,192 
OTHER INCOME (DEDUCTIONS)   
Allowance for equity funds used during construction6,339 9,941 5,941 
Interest and investment income120 428 604 
Miscellaneous - net316 (6,038)(10,444)
TOTAL6,775 4,331 (3,899)
INTEREST EXPENSE   
Interest expense29,105 24,463 21,772 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction(3,049)(4,262)(2,195)
TOTAL26,056 20,201 19,577 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES45,131 52,815 50,716 
Income taxes(4,207)186 (2,436)
NET INCOME$49,338 $52,629 $53,152 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   



402
ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES      
Net income 
$44,553
 
$48,849
 
$44,925
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:      
Depreciation and amortization 52,945
 51,737
 43,205
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued 64,036
 140,283
 22,180
Changes in assets and liabilities:  
  
  
Receivables (18,058) (3,888) 7,878
Fuel inventory (49) 71
 1,104
Accounts payable 1,874
 15,434
 2,738
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued (22,100) (1,685) (1,050)
Interest accrued 44
 534
 1,270
Deferred fuel costs 12,592
 (33,839) (182)
Other working capital accounts (2,711) 4,165
 (1,945)
Provisions for estimated losses (3,430) 4,326
 58,310
Other regulatory assets 16,673
 (2,784) (70,471)
Other regulatory liabilities 110,147
 (3,997) (7,359)
Deferred tax rate change recognized as regulatory liability/asset
 (111,170) 
 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities (15,994) (6,859) (18,831)
Other assets and liabilities (1,555) (7,136) 23,296
Net cash flow provided by operating activities 127,797
 205,211
 105,068
INVESTING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Construction expenditures (115,584) (90,512) (91,928)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 2,418
 1,178
 1,404
Payment for purchase of plant 
 (237,335) 
Investments in affiliates 
 (38) 
Changes in money pool receivable - net 1,492
 1,579
 (15,352)
Payments to storm reserve escrow account (597) (438) (68,886)
Receipts from storm reserve escrow account 2,488
 3
 5,922
Changes in securitization account 283
 2,882
 (4,620)
Net cash flow used in investing activities (109,500) (322,681) (173,460)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt 
 240,604
 95,367
Retirement of long-term debt (10,600) (132,526) 
Repayment of long-term payable due to Entergy Louisiana (2,104) (4,973) (59,610)
Redemption of preferred stock
 (20,599) 
 
Capital contributions from parent 20,000
 47,750
 87,500
Distributions/dividends paid:  
  
  
Common equity (74,250) (18,720) (7,250)
Preferred stock (1,083) (965) (965)
Other 12
 492
 (163)
Net cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities (88,624) 131,662
 114,879
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (70,327) 14,192
 46,487
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 103,068
 88,876
 42,389
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period 
$32,741
 
$103,068
 
$88,876
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:  
  
  
Cash paid (received) during the period for:  
  
  
Interest - net of amount capitalized 
$20,180
 
$19,317
 
$14,951
Income taxes 
($8,660) 
($85,962) 
$8,110
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  




ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES   
Net income$49,338 $52,629 $53,152 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization64,012 56,072 55,930 
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued3,938 21,350 24,548 
Changes in assets and liabilities:   
Receivables(12,003)(9,372)15,724 
Fuel inventory(58)(387)357 
Accounts payable5,582 (5,571)(385)
Taxes accrued398 234 30,547 
Interest accrued1,179 550 879 
Deferred fuel costs(7,048)3,630 (6,486)
Other working capital accounts(13,156)5,021 4,146 
Provisions for estimated losses1,356 1,948 1,511 
Other regulatory assets(7,427)(29,567)21,637 
Other regulatory liabilities(4,728)(22,105)(28,459)
Pension and other postretirement liabilities(14,063)(14,624)(15,134)
Other assets and liabilities(3,296)55,796 13,811 
Net cash flow provided by operating activities64,024 115,604 171,778 
INVESTING ACTIVITIES   
Construction expenditures(228,983)(229,560)(202,186)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction6,339 9,941 5,941 
Payment for purchase of assets(1,584)
Changes in money pool receivable - net5,191 16,825 (9,293)
Payments to storm reserve escrow account(433)(1,752)(1,311)
Receipts from storm reserve escrow account
Changes in securitization account(1,375)236 (770)
Net cash flow used in investing activities(220,845)(204,310)(207,616)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES   
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt138,925 113,876 59,234 
Retirement of long-term debt(56,593)(35,376)(11,042)
Repayment of long-term payable due to associated company(1,838)(1,979)(2,077)
Capital contributions from parent60,000 
Changes in money pool payable - net10,190 
Common equity distributions paid(23,750)
Other146 (1,475)409 
Net cash flow provided by financing activities150,830 75,046 22,774 
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents(5,991)(13,660)(13,064)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period6,017 19,677 32,741 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$26 $6,017 $19,677 
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:   
Cash paid (received) during the period for:   
Interest - net of amount capitalized$26,673 $22,873 $19,840 
Income taxes$3,392 ($5,310)($39,781)
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

403
ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
   
  December 31,
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
     
CURRENT ASSETS    
Cash and cash equivalents    
Cash 
$30
 
$28
Temporary cash investments 32,711
 103,040
Total cash and cash equivalents 32,741
 103,068
Securitization recovery trust account 1,455
 1,738
Accounts receivable:  
  
Customer 51,006
 43,536
Allowance for doubtful accounts (3,057) (3,059)
Associated companies 22,976
 16,811
Other 6,471
 5,926
Accrued unbilled revenues 20,638
 18,254
Total accounts receivable 98,034
 81,468
Deferred fuel costs 
 4,818
Fuel inventory - at average cost 1,890
 1,841
Materials and supplies - at average cost 10,381
 8,416
Prepaid taxes 26,479
 4,379
Prepayments and other 8,030
 6,587
TOTAL 179,010

212,315
     
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
  
Non-utility property at cost (less accumulated depreciation) 1,016
 1,016
Storm reserve escrow account 79,546
 81,437
Other 2,373
 7,160
TOTAL 82,935
 89,613
     
UTILITY PLANT  
  
Electric 1,302,235
 1,258,934
Natural gas 261,263
 240,408
Construction work in progress 46,993
 24,975
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT 1,610,491
 1,524,317
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization 631,178
 604,825
UTILITY PLANT - NET 979,313
 919,492
     
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
  
Regulatory assets:  
  
Deferred fuel costs 4,080
 4,080
Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $72,095 as of December 31, 2017 and $82,272 as of December 31, 2016) 251,433
 268,106
Other 1,065
 963
TOTAL 256,578
 273,149
     
TOTAL ASSETS 
$1,497,836
 
$1,494,569
     
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  



ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT ASSETS  
Cash and cash equivalents  
Cash$26 $26 
Temporary cash investments5,991 
Total cash and cash equivalents26 6,017 
Securitization recovery trust account3,364 1,989 
Accounts receivable:  
Customer70,694 48,265 
Allowance for doubtful accounts(17,430)(3,226)
Associated companies2,381 6,280 
Other4,248 7,378 
Accrued unbilled revenues31,069 25,453 
Total accounts receivable90,962 84,150 
Deferred fuel costs2,130 
Fuel inventory - at average cost1,978 1,920 
Materials and supplies - at average cost16,550 13,522 
Prepayments and other3,715 4,846 
TOTAL118,725 112,444 
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
Non-utility property at cost (less accumulated depreciation)1,016 1,016 
Storm reserve escrow account83,038 82,605 
TOTAL84,054 83,621 
UTILITY PLANT  
Electric1,821,638 1,467,215 
Natural gas348,024 311,432 
Construction work in progress12,460 201,829 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT2,182,122 1,980,476 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization740,796 715,406 
UTILITY PLANT - NET1,441,326 1,265,070 
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
Regulatory assets:  
Deferred fuel costs4,080 4,080 
Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $35,559 as of December 31, 2020 and $49,542 as of December 31, 2019)266,790 259,363 
Other23,931 10,720 
TOTAL294,801 274,163 
TOTAL ASSETS$1,938,906 $1,735,298 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

404

ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIESENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIESENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETSCONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETSCONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITYLIABILITIES AND EQUITYLIABILITIES AND EQUITY
 December 31, December 31,
 2017 2016 20202019
 (In Thousands) (In Thousands)
    
CURRENT LIABILITIES    CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Payable due to Entergy Louisiana
 
$2,077
 
$2,104
Currently maturing long-term debtCurrently maturing long-term debt$0 $25,000 
Payable due to associated companyPayable due to associated company1,618 1,838 
Accounts payable:  
  
Accounts payable:  
Associated companies 47,472
 39,260
Associated companies54,234 43,222 
Other 29,777
 35,920
Other60,766 43,963 
Customer deposits 28,442
 28,667
Customer deposits27,912 28,493 
Taxes accruedTaxes accrued4,700 4,302 
Interest accrued 5,487
 5,443
Interest accrued8,095 6,916 
Deferred fuel costs 7,774
 
Deferred fuel costs4,918 
Current portion of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxesCurrent portion of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes3,296 9,470 
Other 7,351
 11,415
Other5,462 15,827 
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 128,380
 122,809
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES166,083 183,949 
    
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
  
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued 283,302
 334,953
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued338,714 354,536 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits 2,323
 622
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits16,095 2,131 
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net 119,259
 9,074
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net55,675 49,090 
Asset retirement cost liabilities 3,076
 2,875
Asset retirement cost liabilities3,768 3,522 
Accumulated provisions 85,083
 88,513
Accumulated provisions89,898 88,542 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities 20,755
 36,750
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $74,419 as of December 31, 2017 and $84,776 as of December 31, 2016) 418,447
 428,467
Long-term payable due to Entergy Louisiana
 16,346
 18,423
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $41,291 as of December 31, 2020 and $52,641 as of December 31, 2019)Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $41,291 as of December 31, 2020 and $52,641 as of December 31, 2019)629,704 521,539 
Long-term payable due to associated companyLong-term payable due to associated company10,911 12,529 
Other 5,317
 5,357
Other21,141 21,881 
TOTAL NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES 953,908
 925,034
TOTAL NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES1,165,906 1,053,770 
    
Commitments and Contingencies 

 

Commitments and Contingencies00
    
Preferred stock without sinking fund 
 19,780
    
EQUITY  
  
EQUITY  
Member's equity 415,548
 426,946
Member's equity606,917 497,579 
TOTAL 415,548
 426,946
TOTAL606,917 497,579 
    
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 
$1,497,836
 
$1,494,569
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY$1,938,906 $1,735,298 
    
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
See Notes to Financial Statements.  



405


ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN MEMBER'S EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018
Members Equity
(In Thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2014
$228,025
Net income44,925
Net income attributable to Entergy Louisiana
(2,203)
Capital contributions from parent87,500
Common equity distributions(7,250)
Preferred stock dividends(965)
Balance at December 31, 2015
$350,032
Net income48,849
Capital contributions from parent47,750
Common equity distributions(18,720)
Preferred stock dividends(965)
Balance at December 31, 2016
$426,946
Net income44,553
Capital contributions from parent20,000
Common equity distributions(74,250)
Preferred stock dividends(841)
Other(860)
Balance at December 31, 2017
$415,548 
$415,548
Net income53,152 
Common equity distributions(23,750)
Balance at December 31, 2018$444,950 
Net income52,629 
Balance at December 31, 2019$497,579 
Net income49,338 
Capital contributions from parent60,000 
Balance at December 31, 2020$606,917 
See Notes to Financial Statements.



406
ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
          
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (In Thousands)
          
Operating revenues
$716,070
 
$665,463
 
$671,446
 
$735,192
 
$659,746
Net income
$44,553
 
$48,849
 
$44,925
 
$31,030
 
$12,608
Total assets
$1,497,836
 
$1,494,569
 
$1,215,144
 
$1,014,916
 
$964,482
Long-term obligations (a)
$434,793
 
$466,670
 
$357,687
 
$323,280
 
$318,034
          
(a) Includes long-term debt (including the long-term payable to Entergy Louisiana and excluding currently maturing debt) and preferred stock without sinking fund.
          
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (Dollars In Millions)
          
Electric Operating Revenues: 
  
  
  
  
Residential
$250
 
$231
 
$220
 
$230
 
$221
Commercial228
 206
 186
 196
 194
Industrial36
 33
 30
 33
 35
Governmental77
 69
 64
 67
 69
Total retail591
 539
 500
 526
 519
Sales for resale: 
  
  
  
  
Associated companies
 30
 66
 78
 27
Non-associated companies29
 3
 
 4
 
Other12
 15
 18
 17
 19
Total
$632
 
$587
 
$584
 
$625
 
$565
          
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh):   
  
  
  
Residential2,155
 2,231
 2,301
 2,262
 2,152
Commercial2,248
 2,268
 2,257
 2,181
 2,130
Industrial429
 441
 463
 455
 484
Governmental790
 794
 825
 783
 778
Total retail5,622
 5,734
 5,846
 5,681
 5,544
Sales for resale: 
  
  
  
  
Associated companies
 1,071
 1,644
 1,379
 517
Non-associated companies1,703
 141
 11
 18
 14
Total7,325
 6,946
 7,501
 7,078
 6,075
          
          





ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
 20202019201820172016
 (In Thousands)
Operating revenues$633,841 $686,223 $717,390 $716,070 $665,463 
Net income$49,338 $52,629 $53,152 $44,553 $48,849 
Total assets$1,938,906 $1,735,298 $1,576,588 $1,497,836 $1,494,569 
Long-term obligations (a)$640,615 $534,068 $481,725 $434,793 $466,670 
(a) Includes long-term debt (including the long-term payable to associated company and excluding currently maturing debt) and preferred stock without sinking fund.
 20202019201820172016
 (Dollars In Millions)
Electric Operating Revenues:     
Residential$244 $245 $262 $250 $231 
Commercial179 202 217 228 206 
Industrial24 32 33 36 33 
Governmental60 71 72 77 69 
Total billed retail507 550 584 591 539 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies— — — — 30 
Non-associated companies33 38 30 29 
Other21 11 12 15 
Total$561 $594 $625 $632 $587 
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh):    
Residential2,294 2,353 2,401 2,155 2,231 
Commercial1,975 2,215 2,270 2,248 2,268 
Industrial423 438 448 429 441 
Governmental755 815 795 790 794 
Total retail5,447 5,821 5,914 5,622 5,734 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies— — — — 1,071 
Non-associated companies1,969 1,961 1,484 1,703 141 
Total7,416 7,782 7,398 7,325 6,946 

407


ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS


The COVID-19 Pandemic

See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta

In August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta caused extensive damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Texas’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta are currently estimated to be approximately $300 million, including $245 million in capital costs and approximately $55 million in non-capital costs. Entergy Texas is considering all available avenues to recover storm-related costs from Hurricanes Laura and Hurricane Delta, including securitization. Storm cost recovery or financing will be subject to review by applicable regulatory authorities.

Entergy Texas recorded accounts payable and corresponding construction work in progress and regulatory assets for the estimated costs incurred that were necessary to return customers to service. Entergy Texas recorded the regulatory assets in accordance with its accounting policies and based on the historic treatment of such costs in its service area because management believes that recovery through some form of regulatory mechanism is probable. There are well established mechanisms and precedent for addressing these catastrophic events and providing for recovery of prudently incurred storm costs in accordance with applicable regulatory and legal principles. Because Entergy Texas has not gone through the regulatory process regarding these storm costs, there is an element of risk, and Entergy Texas is unable to predict with certainty the degree of success it may have in its recovery initiatives, the amount of restoration costs that it may ultimately recover, or the timing of such recovery.

February 2021 Winter Storms

See the “February 2021 Winter Storms” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the February 2021 winter storms. Entergy Texas’s preliminary estimate for the cost of mobilizing crews and restoring power is approximately $12 million. Natural gas purchases for Entergy Texas for February 1st through 25th, 2021 are approximately $155 million compared to natural gas purchases for February 2020 of $10 million.

Results of Operations


2020 Compared to 2019

Net Income

2017 Compared to 2016


Net income decreased $31.4increased $55.7 million primarily due to lower net revenue, higher depreciation and amortization expenses,retail electric price, higher other operation and maintenance expenses, and higher taxes other than income, taxes.

2016 Compared to 2015

Net income increased $37.9 million primarily due to lower other operation and maintenance expenses, a lower effective income tax rate, after excluding the asset write-offeffect of its receivable associated with the Spindletop gas storage facilityreturn of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers which is offset in 2015,income taxes, and higher net revenue.volume/weather. The increase was partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses.

Net Revenue

2017 Compared to 2016

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2017 to 2016.
408
Amount
(In Millions)

2016 net revenue
$644.2
Net wholesale revenue(35.1)
Purchased power capacity(5.9)
Transmission revenue(5.4)
Reserve equalization5.6
Retail electric price19.0
Other4.4
2017 net revenue
$626.8

The net wholesale revenue variance is primarily due to lower net capacity revenues resulting from the termination of the purchased power agreements between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas in August 2016.

The purchased power capacity variance is primarily due to increased expenses due to capacity cost changes
for ongoing purchased power capacity contracts.

The transmission revenue variance is primarily due to a decrease in the amount of transmission revenues allocated by MISO.

The reserve equalization variance is due to the absence of reserve equalization expenses in 2017 as a result of Entergy Texas’s exit from the System Agreement in August 2016. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the System Agreement.


398

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Operating Revenues

Following is an analysis of the change in operating revenue comparing 2020 to 2019.
Amount
(In Millions)
2019 operating revenues$1,489.0 
Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income4.4 
Return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers58.6 
Retail electric price28.1 
Volume/weather7.0 
2020 operating revenues$1,587.1

Entergy Texas’s results include revenues from rate mechanisms designed to recover fuel, purchased power, and other costs such that the revenues and expenses associated with these items generally offset and do not affect net income. “Fuel, rider, and other revenues that do not significantly affect net income” includes the revenue variance associated with these items.

The return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers resulted from the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes through a rider effective October 2018. In 2020, $28.8 million was returned to customers as compared to $87.4 million in 2019. There is no effect on net income as the reduction in operating revenues is offset by a reduction in income tax expense. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to the implementation of the transmission cost recovery factor rider in September 2016 and an increase in the transmission cost recovery factor rider rateeffective January 2020 and an increase in March 2017, each as approved by the PUCT.distribution cost recovery factor rider effective October 2020. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the transmission and distribution cost recovery factor rider filing.filings.


2016 Compared to 2015

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.
Amount
(In Millions)

2015 net revenue
$637.2
Reserve equalization14.3
Purchased power capacity12.4
Transmission revenue7.0
Retail electric price5.4
Net wholesale revenue(27.8)
Other(4.3)
2016 net revenue
$644.2

The reserve equalization variance is primarily due to a reduction in reserve equalization expense primarily due to changes in the Entergy System generation mix compared to the same period in 2015 as a result of the execution of a new purchased power agreement and Entergy Mississippi’s exit from the System Agreement, each in November 2015, and Entergy Texas’s exit from the System Agreement in August 2016. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the System Agreement.

The purchased power capacity variance is primarily due to decreased expenses due to the termination of the purchased power agreements between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas in August 2016, as well as capacity cost changes for ongoing purchased power capacity contracts.

The transmission revenuevolume/weather variance is primarily due to an increase in Attachment O rates chargedusage during the unbilled sales period and an increase in billed residential usage as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, partially offset by MISO to transmission customersthe effect of less favorable weather on residential sales and decreased commercial and industrial usage as a settlementresult of Attachment O rates previously billed to transmission customersthe COVID-19 pandemic. The decrease in industrial usage is partially offset by MISO.an increase in demand from expansion projects, primarily in the chemicals and transportation industries. See “The COVID-19 Pandemic” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic.


The retail electric price variance isOther Income Statement Variances

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $7.7 million in non-nuclear generation expenses primarily due to a lower scope of work performed during plant outages in 2020 as compared to the implementationsame period in 2019, including a delay in plant outages as a result of the transmission cost recovery factor rider, as approved by the PUCTCOVID-19 pandemic; and implemented
a decrease of $3.7 million primarily due to contract costs in September 2016,2019 related to initiatives to explore new customer products and the increase in the distribution cost recovery rider, as approved by the PUCT and implemented in January 2016. This increaseservices.

The decrease was partially offset by a decrease$2.3 million of transaction costs incurred in energy efficiency revenues. See Note 2 toconnection with the financial statements for further discussionpurchase of the transmission cost recovery factor riderHardin County Peaking Facility and distribution cost recovery factor rider filings.

The net wholesale revenue variance is primarily due to lower capacity revenues resulting from the terminationpartial sale of the purchased power agreements between Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas in August 2016.


Montgomery County Power Station.
399
409

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Other Income Statement Variances

2017 Compared to 2016

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to:

an increase of $5.1 million in transmission and distribution expenses primarily due to higher vegetation maintenance costs;
an increase of $4.3 million in fossil-fueled generation expenses primarily due to a higher scope of work performed during plant outages in 2017 as compared to 2016; and
an increase of $2.8 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to higher incentive-based compensation accruals in 2017 as compared to 2016.

The increase was partially offset by a decrease of $4.5 million due to the absence of transmission equalization expenses, as allocated under the System Agreement, as a result of Entergy Texas’s exit from the System Agreement in August 2016.

Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to an increase in ad valorem taxes resulting from higher assessments and a true-up to the sales and use tax accruals recorded in 2016 resulting from an audit settlement.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service.


2016 Compared to 2015

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

a decrease of $11.2 million in fossil-fueled generation expensesincome increased primarily due to an overall lower scope of work performed in 2016 as compared to 2015;
a decrease of $7 million in transmission expenses primarily due to lower transmission equalization expenses, as allocated under the System Agreement, as compared to the same period in 2015 as a result of Entergy Mississippi’s exit from the System Agreement in November 2015 and Entergy Texas’s exit from the System Agreement in August 2016;
a decrease of $5.7 million in compensation and benefits costs primarily due to a decrease in net periodic pension and other postretirement benefits costs as a result of an increase in the discount rateallowance for equity funds used during construction due to valuehigher construction work in progress in 2020, including the benefit liabilities and a refinement in the approach used to estimate the service cost and interest cost components of pension and other postretirement costs. See “Critical Accounting Estimates - Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below and Note 11 to the financial statements for further discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit costs;
the write-off in the third quarter 2015 of $4.3 million of rate case expenses and acquisition costs related to the proposed UnionMontgomery County Power Station acquisition upon Entergy Texas’s withdrawal of its 2015 rate case and dismissal of its certificate of convenience and necessity filing; andproject.
a decrease of $4.2 million in energy efficiency costs.

The asset write-off variance is due to the $23.5 million ($15.3 million net-of-tax) write-off recorded in 2015 of the receivable associated with the Spindletop gas storage facility. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the write-off.

Income Taxes


The effective income tax rates were 1.4% for 2017, 2016,2020 and 2015 were 38.9%, 37.0%,(51.1%) for 2019. The difference in the effective income tax rates versus the federal statutory rate of 21% for 2020 and 34.9%, respectively.2019 was primarily due to the amortization of excess accumulated deferred income taxes. See Notes 2 and 3 to the financial statements for a discussion of the effects and regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 35%21% to the effective income tax rates.


2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Entergy Texas’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of results of operations for 2019 compared to 2018.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018 were as follows:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period$12,929 $56 $115,513 
Net cash provided by (used in):   
Operating activities375,325 286,739 331,753 
Investing activities(848,648)(878,280)(395,973)
Financing activities708,990 604,414 (51,237)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents235,667 12,873 (115,457)
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$248,596 $12,929 $56 

2020 Compared to 2019

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities increased $88.6 million in 2020 compared to 2019 primarily due to the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs and a decrease in the return of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes to customers. The increase was partially offset by lower collections of receivables from customers, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and increased storm spending. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the regulatory activity regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. See “Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta” above for discussion of hurricane restoration efforts.

400
410

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Income Tax Legislation

See the “Income Tax Legislation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal income tax legislation enacted in December 2017. Note 3 to the financial statements contains additional discussion of the effect of the Act on 2017 results of operations and financial position, the provisions of the Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Act, and Note 2 to the financial statements discusses proceedings commenced or other responses by Entergy’s regulators to the Act.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 were as follows:
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
$6,181
 
$2,182
 
$30,441
      
Net cash provided by (used in): 
  
  
Operating activities301,396
 306,601
 284,268
Investing activities(383,176) (330,191) (315,293)
Financing activities191,112
 27,589
 2,766
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents109,332
 3,999
 (28,259)
      
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
$115,513
 
$6,181
 
$2,182

Operating Activities

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $5.2 million in 2017 primarily due to lower net income, the timing of recovery of fuel and purchased power costs, and an increase of $13.7 million in storm spending primarily as a result of Hurricane Harvey. The decrease was partially offset by income tax refunds of $21.1 million in 2017 compared to income tax payments of $28.5 million in 2016. Entergy Texas had income tax refunds in 2017 and income tax payments in 2016 in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement.  The income tax refunds in 2017 primarily resulted from deductible temporary differences. The income tax payments in 2016 resulted primarily from adjustments associated with the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a discussion of the income tax audit.
Net cash flow provided by operating activities increased $22.3 million in 2016 primarily due to increased net income and a decrease of $31.8 million in income tax payments in 2016. Entergy Texas had income tax payments in 2016 and 2015 in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement.  The income tax payments in 2016 resulted primarily from adjustments associated with the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit. The income tax payments in 2015 resulted primarily from the results of operations and the reversal of taxable temporary differences. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a discussion of the income tax audit. The increase was partially offset by an increase of $5.2 million in interest paid in 2016 due to the issuance of $125 million of 2.55% Series first mortgage bonds in March 2016 and the timing of collections from customers.


401

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Investing Activities


Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $53decreased $29.6 million in 20172020 primarily due to:


a decrease of $158.8 million in non-nuclear generation construction expenditures primarily due to the Montgomery County Power Station in 2020 as compared to 2019;
a decrease of $9.9 million in information technology capital expenditures primarily due to decreased spending on various technology projects; and
money pool activity;activity.

The decrease was partially offset by:

an increase of $34.9$93.8 million in storm spending in 2020, primarily due to Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta restoration efforts. See “Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta” above for discussion of hurricane restoration efforts;
an increase of $43.9 million in distribution construction expenditures, primarily due to increased storm spending primarily as a resultinvestment in the reliability and infrastructure of Hurricane Harvey andEntergy Texas’s distribution system, including increased spending on digital technology improvements within the customer contact centers;advanced metering infrastructure; and
an increase of $24.4$29.8 million in fossil-fueled generationtransmission construction expenditures primarily due to a higher scope of work performed in 20172020 as compared to 2016; and2019.
an increase of $8.5 million in spending on advanced metering infrastructure.

The increase was partially offset by a decrease of $51.7 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a lower scope of work performed in 2017 as compared to 2016.

IncreasesDecreases in Entergy Texas’s receivable from the money pool are a usesource of cash flow, and Entergy Texas’s receivable from the money pool increaseddecreased by $44.2$6.6 million in 20172020 compared to increasing by $0.7$11.2 million in 2016.2019. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.
Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $14.9 million in 2016 primarily due to increases of $27.7 million in transmission construction expenditures and $11.7 million in distribution construction expenditures primarily due to a greater scope of projects in 2016 as compared to the same period in 2015. The increase was partially offset by a $21.4 million decrease in fossil-fueled generation construction expenditures primarily due to a decreased scope of work performed during plant outages in 2016 as compared to the same period in 2015.


Financing Activities


Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $163.5$104.6 million in 2017from 2020 compared to 2019 primarily due to:


a $115 million capital contribution received from Entergy Corporation in December 2017 in anticipation of upcoming construction expenditures;
the issuance of $150$600 million of 2.55%1.75% Series first mortgage bonds in December 2017 compared to October 2020;
the repayment, at maturity, of $500 million of 7.125% Series mortgage bonds in February 2019;
the issuance of $125$175 million of 2.55%3.55% Series first mortgage bonds in March 2016;2020; and
money pool activity.


The increase was partially offset by:

the issuances of $300 million of 4.0% Series mortgage bonds and $400 million of 4.5% Series mortgage bonds, each in January 2019;
the issuance of $300 million of 3.55% Series mortgage bonds in September 2019;
the repayment of $135 million of 5.625% Series mortgage bonds in November 2020;
the issuance of $35 million aggregate liquidation value 5.375% Series A preferred stock in September 2019; and
the payment of $30 million of common stock dividends in 2020. No common stock dividends were paid in 2019 as a result of upcoming capital expenditures, including Montgomery County Power Station.

Decreases in Entergy Texas’s payable to the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Texas’s payable to the money pool decreased by $22.1$22.4 million in 2016.2019.

Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $24.8 million in 2016 primarily due to the retirement of $200 million of 3.6% Series first mortgage bonds in June 2015 and the issuance of $125 million of 2.55% Series first mortgage bonds in March 2016, partially offset by the issuance of $250 million of 5.15% Series first mortgage bonds in May 2015 and money pool activity.

Decreases in Entergy Texas’s payable to the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Texas’s payable to the money pool decreased by $22.1 million in 2016 compared to increasing by $22.1 million in 2015.



402
411

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Cash Flow” in Item 7 of Entergy Texas’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2019 compared to 2018.

Capital Structure


Entergy Texas’s capitalizationdebt to capital ratio is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table. The decreaseincrease in the debt to capital ratio for Entergy Texas is primarily due to the net issuance of $640 million of mortgage bonds in 2020, partially offset by the $175 million capital contribution received from Entergy Corporation in 2020 and an increasenet income in retained earnings.2020.
 December 31,
2020
December 31,
2019
Debt to capital53.7 %51.7 %
Effect of excluding the securitization bonds(1.3 %)(2.8 %)
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)52.4 %48.9 %
Effect of subtracting cash(2.7 %)(0.2 %)
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)49.7 %48.7 %
 December 31,
2017
 December 31,
2016
Debt to capital55.7% 58.5%
Effect of excluding the securitization bonds(6.3%) (8.3%)
Debt to capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)49.4% 50.2%
Effect of subtracting cash(2.5%) (0.1%)
Net debt to net capital, excluding securitization bonds (a)46.9% 50.1%

(a)Calculation excludes the securitization bonds, which are non-recourse to Entergy Texas.


Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents. Debt consists of finance lease obligations and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion. Capital consists of debt and common equity. Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents. Entergy Texas uses the debt to capital ratios excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes they provide useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Texas’s financial condition because the securitization bonds are non-recourse to Entergy Texas, as more fully described in Note 5 to the financial statements. Entergy Texas also uses the net debt to net capital ratio excluding securitization bonds in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating Entergy Texas’s financial condition because net debt indicates Entergy Texas’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.


Entergy Texas seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings. To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a dividend, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the targeted capital structure. To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Texas may issue incremental debt or reduce dividends, or both, to maintain its targeted capital structure. In addition, Entergy Texas may receive equity contributions to maintain the targetedits capital structure for certain circumstances such as financing of large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reduced dividends.


Uses of Capital


Entergy Texas requires capital resources for:


construction and other capital investments;
debt maturities or retirements;
working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel and purchased power costs; and
dividend and interest payments.


403
412

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Following are the amounts of Entergy Texas’s planned construction and other capital investments.
 202120222023
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:  
Generation$95 $40 $490 
Transmission115 125 180 
Distribution245 285 295 
Utility Support55 75 50 
Total$510 $525 $1,015 
 2018 2019 2020
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:     
Generation
$175
 
$385
 
$265
Transmission195
 240
 165
Distribution105
 165
 145
Utility Support55
 30
 30
Total
$530
 
$820
 
$605


In addition to the planned spending in the table above, Entergy Texas also expects to pay for $180 million of capital investments in 2021 related to Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta restoration work that have been accrued as of December 31, 2020.

Following are the amounts of Entergy Texas’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 20212022-20232024-2025After 2025Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)$353 $207 $151 $2,163 $2,874 
Operating leases (b)$5 $7 $3 $1 $16 
Finance leases (b)$1 $2 $2 $1 $6 
Purchase obligations (c)$255 $384 $361 $294 $1,294 
 2018 2019-2020 2021-2022 After 2022 Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)
$159
 
$749
 
$385
 
$1,168
 
$2,461
Operating leases (b)
$4
 
$5
 
$2
 
$2
 
$13
Purchase obligations (c)
$279
 
$555
 
$527
 
$1,188
 
$2,549


(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Does not include power purchase agreements that are accounted for as leases that are included in purchase obligations.
(c)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Texas, it primarily includes unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations.

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Lease obligations are discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements.
(c)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services.  For Entergy Texas, it primarily includes unconditional fuel and purchased power obligations.

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, Entergy Texas expects to contribute approximately $10.9$7 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $3.2 million$66 thousand to other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2018,2021, although the 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021. See “Critical Accounting Estimates - Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.


Also in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy Texas has $15.8$14.2 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes and payments for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.


In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Texas includes specific investments such as the MontgomeryLiberty County Power Station discussed below;and the Hardin County Peaking Facility; transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to enhance reliability and improve service to customers, including investment to support advanced metering;meters and related investments; resource planning, including potential generation and renewables projects; system improvements; software and security; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements,
413

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital. Management provides more information on long-term debt in Note 5 to the financial statements.


As discussed above in “Capital Structure,”a subsidiary, Entergy Texas routinely evaluatesdividends its ability to pay dividendsearnings to Entergy Corporation from its earnings.at a percentage determined monthly.


Liberty County Solar Facility
404

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Montgomery County Power Station

In October 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT seeking certification that the public convenience and necessity would be served by the construction of the Montgomery County Power Station, a nominal 993 MW combined-cycle generating unit in Montgomery County, Texas on land adjacent to the existing Lewis Creek plant. The current estimated cost of the Montgomery County Power Station is $937 million, including approximately $111 million of transmission interconnection and network upgrades and other related costs. The independent monitor, who oversaw the request for proposal process, filed testimony and a report affirming that the Montgomery County Power Station was selected through an objective and fair request for proposal process that showed no undue preference to any proposal. In June 2017 parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. The stipulation contemplates that Entergy Texas’s level of cost-recovery for generation construction costs for Montgomery County Power Station is capped at $831 million, subject to certain exclusions such as force majeure events. Transmission interconnection and network upgrades and other related costs are not subject to the $831 million cap. In July 2017 the PUCT approved the stipulation. Subject to the timely receipt of other permits and approvals, commercial operation is estimated to occur by mid-2021.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)


In April 2017 the Texas legislature enacted legislation that extends statutory support for AMI deployment to Entergy Texas and directs that if Entergy Texas elects to deploy AMI, it shall do so as rapidly as practicable. In July 2017,September 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking anPUCT approval to amend Entergy Texas’s certificate of convenience and necessity to acquire the 100 MW Liberty County Solar Facility and a determination that Entergy Texas’s acquisition of the facility through a tax equity partnership is in the public interest. In its preliminary order, from the PUCT approvingdetermined that, in considering Entergy Texas’s deployment of AMI. Entergy Texas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation ofapplication, it would not specifically address whether Entergy Texas’s modernized power grid. The filing included an estimateuse of implementation costs for AMI of $132 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits,tax equity partnership is in the public interest. A procedural schedule was established with Entergy Texas showing that its AMI deploymenta hearing on the merits scheduled in April 2021. Closing is expected to produce nominal net operational cost savings to customers of $33 million. Entergy Texas also sought to continue to includeoccur in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $41 million at December 31, 2016, of existing meters that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Texas proposed a seven-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. Entergy Texas also proposed a surcharge tariff to recover the reasonable and necessary costs it has and will incur under the deployment plan for the full deployment of advanced meters. Further, Entergy Texas sought approval of fees that would be charged to customers who choose to opt out of receiving service through an advanced meter and instead receive electric service with a non-standard meter. 2023.

Hardin County Peaking Facility

In October 2017,April 2020, Entergy Texas and other parties entered intoEast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. filed a joint report and application seeking PUCT approvals related to two transactions: (1) Entergy Texas’s acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility from East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; and (2) Entergy Texas’s sale of a 7.55% partial interest in the Montgomery County Power Station to East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. The two transactions, currently scheduled to close in April 2021 (pending PUCT approval), are interdependent. In October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement permitting deployment of AMI with limited modifications. The PUCT approved the stipulation and settlement agreement in December 2017. Consistent with thesupporting approval deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018.transactions. Key provisions of the settlement include: Entergy Texas expectswill propose to recoverdepreciate its investment in Hardin County Peaking Facility through the remaining net book valueend of 2041; Entergy Texas’s recovery of its existing meters through a regulatory asset toinvestment in Hardin County Peaking Facility will be amortizedcapped at current depreciation rates.approximately $36 million; and Entergy Texas will not seek recovery of an acquisition adjustment, if any, or transaction costs for either transaction. The settlement is currently pending before the PUCT.


Sources of Capital


Entergy Texas’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:


internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
debt or preferred stock issuances;issuances, including debt issuances to refund or retire currently outstanding or maturing indebtedness;
capital contributions; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.


Entergy Texas may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest and dividend rates are favorable.



405

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


All debt and common and preferred stock issuances by Entergy Texas require prior regulatory approval. Debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its bond indenture and other agreements. Entergy Texas has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.


Entergy Texas’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
2020201920182017
(In Thousands)
$4,601$11,181($22,389)$44,903
414

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
2017 2016 2015 2014
(In Thousands)
$44,903 $681 ($22,068) $306


See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.


Entergy Texas has a credit facility in the amount of $150 million scheduled to expire in August 2022.September 2024. The credit facility allows Entergy Texas to issueincludes fronting commitments for the issuance of letters of credit against $30 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, 2017,2020, there were no cash borrowings and $25.6$1.3 million of letters of credit outstanding under the credit facility. In addition, Entergy Texas is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations to MISO. As of December 31, 2017, a $22.82020, $6.2 million letterin letters of credit waswere outstanding under Entergy Texas’s letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the credit facilities.


Entergy Texas obtained authorizations from the FERC through October 2019July 2022 for short-term borrowings, not to exceed an aggregate amount of $200 million at any time outstanding, and long-term borrowings and security issuances. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Texas’s short-term borrowing limits.


State and Local Rate Regulation and Fuel-Cost Recovery


The rates that Entergy Texas charges for its services significantly influence its financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. Entergy Texas is regulated and the rates charged to its customers are determined in regulatory proceedings. The PUCT, a governmental agency, is primarily responsible for approval of the rates charged to customers.


Filings with the PUCT


20112018 Rate Case


In November 2011,In May 2018, Entergy Texas filed a base rate case requesting a $112with the PUCT seeking an increase in base rates and rider rates of approximately $166 million, of which $48 million is associated with moving costs currently being collected through riders into base rates such that the total incremental revenue requirement increase is approximately $118 million. The base rate increase reflecting a 10.6% return on common equitycase was based on a 12-month test year ending December 31, 2017. In addition, Entergy Texas included capital additions placed into service for the period of April 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017, as well as a post-test year adjustment to include capital additions placed in service by June 30, 2018.

In October 2018 the parties filed an adjusted June 2011 test year.  The rate case also proposed a purchased power recovery rider.  On January 12, 2012, the PUCT voted not to address the purchased power recovery riderunopposed settlement resolving all issues in the rate case, butproceeding and a motion for interim rates effective for usage on and after October 17, 2018. The unopposed settlement reflects the PUCT voted to set a baseline in the rate case proceeding that would be applicable if a purchased power capacity rider is approved in a separate proceeding.  In April 2012 the PUCT Staff filed direct testimony recommendingfollowing terms: a base rate increase of $66$53.2 million (net of costs realigned from riders and including updated depreciation rates), a 9.6% return on common equity.$25 million refund to reflect the lower federal income tax rate applicable to Entergy Texas from January 25, 2018 through the date new rates are implemented, $6 million of capitalized skylining tree hazard costs will not be recovered from customers, $242.5 million of protected excess accumulated deferred income taxes, which includes a tax gross-up, will be returned to customers through base rates under the average rate assumption method over the lives of the associated assets, and $185.2 million of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes, which includes a tax gross-up, will be returned to customers through a rider. The PUCT Staff, however, subsequently filedunprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes rider will include carrying charges and will be in effect over a statementperiod of position12 months for large customers and over a period of four years for other customers. The settlement also provides for the deferral of $24.5 million of costs associated with the remaining book value of the Neches and Sabine 2 plants, previously taken out of service, to be recovered over a ten-year period and the deferral of $20.5 million of costs associated with Hurricane Harvey to be recovered over a 12-year period, each beginning in October 2018. The settlement provides final resolution of all issues in the proceeding indicating that it was still evaluatingmatter, including those related to the position it would ultimately take inTax Act. In October 2018 the case regarding Entergy Texas’s recovery of purchased power capacity costs and Entergy Texas’s proposalALJ granted the unopposed motion for interim rates to defer its MISO transition expenses.be effective for service rendered on or after October 17, 2018. In April 2012, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony indicating a revised request for a $105 million base rate increase.  A hearing was held in late-April through early-May 2012.

In September 2012December 2018 the PUCT issued an order approving the unopposed settlement.

415

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider

In March 2019, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a $28request to set a new DCRF rider. The proposed new DCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $3.2 million rate increase,annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. In September 2019 the PUCT issued an order approving rates, which had been effective July 2012.on an interim basis since June 2019, at the level proposed in Entergy Texas’s application.

In March 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $23.6 million annually, or $20.4 million in incremental annual DCRF revenue beyond Entergy Texas’s then-effective DCRF rider, based on its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019. In May and June 2020 intervenors filed testimony recommending reductions in Entergy Texas’s annual revenue requirement of approximately $0.3 million and $4.1 million. The parties briefed the contested issues in this matter and a proposal for decision was issued in September 2020 recommending a $4.1 million revenue reduction related to non-Advanced Metering System meters included in the DCRF calculation. The parties filed exceptions to the proposal for decision and replies to those exceptions in September 2020. In October 2020 the PUCT issued a final order includedapproving a finding that “a return$16.3 million incremental annual DCRF revenue increase.

In October 2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $26.3 million annually, or $6.8 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on common equity (ROE)its capital invested in distribution between January 1, 2020 and August 31, 2020. In February 2021 the administrative law judge with the State Office of 9.80 percentAdministrative Hearings approved Entergy Texas's agreed motion for interim rates, which will allow [Entergy Texas]go into effect in March 2021. The administrative law judge also adopted a reasonable opportunityprocedural schedule setting a hearing on the merits, if necessary, in April 2021.

Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider

In December 2018, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to earnset a reasonable returnnew 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 capital.”  The order also provided for increases in depreciation ratestransmission between January 1, 2018 and the annual storm reserve accrual.  The order also reducedSeptember 30, 2018. In April 2019 parties filed testimony proposing a load growth adjustment, which would fully offset Entergy Texas’s proposed purchased power capacity costs, stating that they are not known and measurable; reducedTCRF revenue requirement. In July 2019 the PUCT granted Entergy Texas’s regulatory assets associatedapplication 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. In October 2019 the PUCT issued an order on a motion for rehearing, clarifying and affirming its prior order granting Entergy Texas’s application as filed. Also, in October 2019 a second motion for rehearing was filed, and Entergy Texas filed a response in opposition to the motion. The second motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law. In December 2019, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers filed an appeal to the PUCT order in district court alleging that the PUCT erred in declining to apply a load growth adjustment.

In August 2019, Entergy Texas filed with Hurricane Rita; excludedthe PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The amended TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $19.4 million annually from rateEntergy Texas’s retail customers based on its capital invested in transmission between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019, which is $16.7 million in incremental annual revenue above the $2.7 million approved in the prior pending TCRF proceeding. In January 2020 the PUCT issued an order approving an unopposed settlement providing for recovery capitalized financially-based incentive compensation; included $1.6 million of MISO transition expense in base rates;the requested revenue requirement. Entergy Texas implemented the amended rider beginning with bills covering usage on and reduced Entergy’s Texas’s fuel reconciliation recovery by $4after January 23, 2020.


406
416

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

million because the PUCT disagreed with the line-loss factor used in the calculation.  After considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the PUCT order, Entergy Texas recorded in the third quarter 2012 an approximate $24 million charge to recognize that assets associated with Hurricane Rita, financially-based incentive compensation, and fuel recovery are no longer probable of recovery.  Entergy Texas believed that it was entitled to recover these prudently incurred costs, however, and it filed a motion for rehearing regarding these and several other issues in the PUCT’s order on October 4, 2012.  Several other parties also filed motions for rehearing of the PUCT’s order.  The PUCT subsequently denied rehearing of substantive issues.  Several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. A hearing was held in July 2014. In October 2014 the Travis County District Court issued an order upholding the PUCT’s decision except as to the line-loss factor issue referenced above, which was found in favor of Entergy Texas. In November 2014, Entergy Texas and other parties, including the PUCT, appealed the Travis County District Court decision to the Third Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the court panel was held in September 2015. In April 2016 the Third Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court’s decision on all points. Entergy Texas petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. In September 2017 the Texas Supreme Court denied the petitions for review. Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review. In January 2018 the Texas Supreme Court denied Entergy Texas’s motion for rehearing.

Distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) rider

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed to amend its DCRF rider. Entergy Texas requested an increase in recovery under the rider of $6.5 million, for a total collection of $10.1 million annually from retail customers. In October 2015 intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony opposing, in part, Entergy Texas’s request. In November 2015, Entergy Texas and the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement and supporting documents. The settlement established an annual revenue requirement of $8.65 million for the amended DCRF rider, with the resulting rates effective for usage on and after January 1, 2016. The PUCT approved the settlement agreement in February 2016.

In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application to amend its DCRF rider by increasing the total collection from $8.65 million to approximately $19 million. In July 2017, Entergy Texas, the PUCT, and the two other parties in the proceeding entered into an unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in an amended DCRF annual revenue requirement of $18.3 million, with the resulting rates effective for usage no later than October 1, 2017. In September 2017 the PUCT issued its final order approving the unopposed stipulation and settlement agreement. The amended DCRF rider rates became effective for usage on and after September 1, 2017.
Transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) rider

In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a TCRF rider requesting a $13 million increase, incremental to base rates. Testimony was filed in November 2015, with the PUCT staff and other parties proposing various disallowances involving, among other things, MISO charges, vegetation management costs, and bad debt expenses that would reduce the requested increase by approximately $2 million. In addition to those recommended disallowances, a number of parties recommended that Entergy Texas’s request be reduced by an additional $3.4 million to account for load growth since base rates were last set. A hearing on the merits was held in December 2015. In February 2016 a State Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the PUCT disallow approximately $2 million from Entergy Texas’s $13 million request, but recommending that the PUCT not accept the load growth offset. In June 2016 the PUCT indicated that it would take up in a future rulemaking project the issue of whether a load growth adjustment should apply to a TCRF. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order generally accepting the proposal for decision but declining to adjust the TCRF baseline in two instances as recommended by the ALJ, which resulted in a total annual allowance of approximately $10.5 million. The PUCT also ordered its staff and Entergy Texas to track all spare autotransformer transfers going forward so that it could address the appropriate accounting treatment and prudence of such transfers in Entergy Texas’s next base rate case. Entergy Texas implemented the TCRF rider beginning with September 2016 bills.


407

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


In September 2016,2020, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The proposed amended TCRF rider is designed to collect approximately $29.5 million annually from Entergy Texas’s retail customers. This amount includes thecustomers approximately $10.5$51 million annually, thator $31.6 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective TCRF rider based on its capital invested in transmission between July 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in March 2021. In February 2021, Entergy Texas is currently authorizedfiled an agreed motion to collect throughabate the TCRF rider, as discussed above. In December 2016, concurrent withprocedural schedule, noting that the 2016 fuel reconciliation stipulation and settlement agreement discussed above, Entergy Texas and the PUCTparties had reached a settlement agreeingin principle, and the administrative law judge granted the motion to the amended TCRFabate.

Generation Cost Recovery Rider

In October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider with an initial annual revenue requirement of $29.5approximately $91 million to begin recovering a return of and on its capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020. In December 2020, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement supporting a generation cost recovery rider with an annual revenue requirement of approximately $86 million. As discussed below,The settlement revenue requirement is based on a depreciation rate intended to fully depreciate Montgomery County Power Station over 38 years and the termsremoval of certain costs from Entergy Texas’s request. Under the settlement, Entergy Texas retains the right to propose a different depreciation rate and seek recovery of a majority of the two settlements are interdependent. Thecosts removed from its request in its next base rate proceeding. On January 14, 2021, the PUCT approved the generation cost recovery rider settlement rates on an interim basis and issued a final orderabated the proceeding. Within 60 days of Montgomery County Power Station being placed in March 2017.service on January 1, 2021, Entergy Texas implementedwill file to update its generation cost recovery rider to include investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020. The current estimated cost of Montgomery County Power Station, including transmission interconnection and network upgrades, is approximately $921 million. Of this investment, approximately $756 million is eligible to begin being recovered through the amended TCRFgeneration cost recovery rider. Entergy Texas will address recovery of the remainder of its Montgomery County Power Station investment through other rate mechanisms.

In December 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider beginningto reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which is expected to close in April 2021.The initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represent no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates to be established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding.Once Entergy Texas has acquired the Hardin County Peaking Facility, its investment in the facility will be reflected in the updated filing to Entergy Texas’s application, which will be made within 60 days of the acquisition’s closing.

COVID-19 Orders

In March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of COVID-19.In future proceedings the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon.In March 2020 the PUCT ordered a moratorium on disconnections for nonpayment for all customer classes, but, in April 2020, revised the disconnect moratorium to apply only to residential customers.The PUCT allowed the moratorium to expire on June 13, 2020, but on July 17, 2020, the PUCT re-established the disconnect moratorium for residential customers until August 31, 2020.In January 2021, Entergy Texas resumed disconnections for customers with bills covering usage on and after March 20, 2017.past-due balances that have not made payment arrangements. As of December 31, 2020, Entergy Texas recorded a regulatory asset of $12.9 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.


Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery


Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including interest, not recovered in base rates.   Semi-annual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March
417

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in fuel mix.  The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT.

In August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an application seeking PUCT approval to implement an interim fuel refund of approximately $24.6 million for over-collected fuel costs incurred during the months of November 2012 through April 2014. This refund resulted from (i) applying $48.6 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received in May 2014 related to the June - December 2005 period to Entergy Texas’s $8.7 million under-recovered fuel balance as of April 30, 2014 and (ii) netting that fuel balance against the $15.3 million bandwidth remedy payment that Entergy Texas made related to calendar year 2013 production costs. Also in August 2014, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed motion for interim rates to implement these refunds for most customers over a two-month period commencing with September 2014. The PUCT issued its order approving the interim relief in August 2014 and Entergy Texas completed the refunds in October 2014. Parties intervened in this matter, and all parties agreed that the proceeding should be bifurcated such that the proposed interim refund would become final in a separate proceeding, which refund was approved by the PUCT in March 2015.   In July 2015 certain parties filed briefs in the open proceeding asserting that Entergy Texas should refund to retail customers an additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs.  In October 2015 an ALJ issued a proposal for decision recommending that the additional $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments be refunded to retail customers. In January 2016 the PUCT issued its order affirming the ALJ’s recommendation, and Entergy Texas filed a motion for rehearing of the PUCT’s decision, which the PUCT denied. In March 2016, Entergy Texas filed a complaint in Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas and a petition in the Travis County (State) District Court appealing the PUCT’s decision. The pending appeals did not stay the PUCT’s decision. In April 2016, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application to refund to customers approximately $56.2 million. The refund resulted from (i) $41.8 million of fuel cost recovery over-collections through February 2016, (ii) the $10.9 million in bandwidth remedy payments, discussed above, that Entergy Texas received related to calendar year 2006 production costs, and (iii) $3.5 million in bandwidth remedy payments that Entergy Texas received related to 2006-2008 production costs. In June 2016, Entergy Texas filed an unopposed settlement agreement that added additional over-recovered fuel costs for the months of March and April 2016. The settlement resulted in a $68 million refund. The ALJ approved the refund on an interim basis to be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016. In July 2016 the PUCT issued an order approving the interim refund. The federal appeal of the PUCT’s January 2016 decision was heard in December 2016, and the Federal District Court granted Entergy Texas’s requested relief. In January 2017 the PUCT and an intervenor filed petitions for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the Federal District Court ruling. Oral argument was held before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in February 2018, and a decision is pending. The State District Court appeal of the PUCT’s January 2016 decision also remains pending.

In July 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016. Under a recent PUCT rule change, a A fuel reconciliation is required to be filed at least once every three years and outside of a base rate case filing. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.77 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an over-recovery balance of

408

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

approximately $19.3 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning Apri1 2016. Entergy Texas also noted, however, that the estimated $19.3 million over collection was being refunded to customers as a portion of the interim fuel refund beginning with the first billing cycle of July 2016, discussed above. Entergy Texas also requested a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts and arrangements entered into or modified during the reconciliation period that have not been reviewed by the PUCT in a prior proceeding. In December 2016, Entergy Texas entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement resulting in a $6 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised and a refund of the over-recovery balance of $21 million as of November 30, 2016, to most customers beginning April 2017 through June 2017. This settlement was developed concurrently with the stipulation and settlement agreement in the 2016 transmission cost recovery factor rider amendment discussed above, and the terms and conditions in both settlements are interdependent. The fuel reconciliation settlement was approved by the PUCT in March 2017 and the refunds were made.

In June 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application for a fuel refund of approximately $30.7 million for the months of December 2016 through April 2017. For most customers, the refunds flowed through bills for the months of July 2017 through September 2017. The fuel refund was approved by the PUCT in August 2017.


In December 2017, Entergy Texas filed an application for a fuel refund of approximately $30.5 million for the months of May 2017 through October 2017. Also in December 2017, the PUCT’s ALJ approved the refund on an interim basis. For most customers, the refunds flowed through bills beginning January 2018 and will continue through March 2018. A final decisionThe fuel refund was approved by the PUCT in this matter remains pending.March 2018.


In September 2019, Entergy Texas filed an application to reconcile its fuel and purchased power costs for the period from April 2016 through March 2019. During the reconciliation period, Entergy Texas incurred approximately $1.6 billion in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel and purchased power expenses, net of certain revenues credited to such expenses and other adjustments. Entergy Texas estimated an under-recovery balance of approximately $25.8 million, including interest, which Entergy Texas requested authority to carry over as the beginning balance for the subsequent reconciliation period beginning April 2019. In March 2020 an intervenor filed testimony proposing that the PUCT disallow: (1) $2 million in replacement power costs associated with generation outages during the reconciliation period; and (2) $24.4 million associated with the operation of the Spindletop natural gas storage facility during the reconciliation period. In April 2020, Entergy Texas filed rebuttal testimony refuting all points raised by the intervenor. In June 2020 the parties filed a stipulation and settlement agreement, which included a $1.2 million disallowance not associated with any particular issue raised by any party.The PUCT approved the settlement in August 2020.

In July 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to implement an interim fuel refund of $25.5 million, including interest.Entergy Texas proposed that the interim fuel refund be implemented beginning with the first August 2020 billing cycle over a three-month period for smaller customers and in a lump sum amount in the billing month of August 2020 for transmission-level customers.The interim fuel refund was approved in July 2020, and Entergy Texas began refunds in August 2020.

In February 2021, Entergy Texas filed an application to implement a fuel refund for a cumulative over-recovery of approximately $75 million that is primarily attributable to settlements received by Entergy Texas from MISO related to Hurricane Laura. Entergy Texas planned to issue the refund over the period of March through August 2021. On February 22, 2021, Entergy Texas filed a motion to abate its fuel refund proceeding to assess how the February 2021 winter storm impacted Entergy Texas’s fuel over-recovery position.

Federal Regulation


See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation– Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.


Nuclear Matters


See the “Nuclear Matters” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of nuclear matters.


Industrial and Commercial Customers


Entergy Texas’s large industrial and commercial customers continually explore ways to reduce their energy costs. In particular, cogeneration is an option available to a portion of Entergy Texas’s industrial customer base. Entergy Texas responds by working with industrial and commercial customers and negotiating electric service contracts to provide, under existing rate schedules, competitive rates that match specific customer needs and load
418

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
profiles. Entergy Texas actively participates in economic development, customer retention, and reclamation activities to increase industrial and commercial demand, from both new and existing customers.


Environmental Risks


Entergy Texas’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters. Management believes that Entergy Texas is in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted in “Regulation of Entergy’s Business - Environmental Regulation” in Part I, Item 1. Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance costs cannot be precisely estimated.




409

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Critical Accounting Estimates


The preparation of Entergy Texas’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to apply appropriate accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that can have a significant effect on reported financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Management has identified the following accounting policies and estimates as critical because they are based on assumptions and measurements that involve a high degree of uncertainty, and the potential for future changes in the assumptions and measurements that could produce estimates that would have a material effect on the presentation of Entergy Texas’s financial position or results of operations.


Utility Regulatory Accounting


See “Utility Regulatory Accounting” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of accounting for the effects of rate regulation.

Unbilled Revenue

See “Unbilled Revenue” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the unbilled revenue amounts.


Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments


See “Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the impairment of long-lived assets.


Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions


See “Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.


Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits


Entergy Texas’s qualified pension and other postretirement reported costs, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are impacted by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms.   See the “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries’ Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion. Because of the complexity of these calculations, the long-term nature of these obligations, and the importance of the assumptions utilized, Entergy’s estimate of these costs is a critical accounting estimate.



410

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Cost Sensitivity


The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension and qualified projected benefit obligation cost to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
419

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Qualified Pension Cost Impact on 2017 Qualified Projected Benefit ObligationActuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Qualified Pension CostImpact on 2020 Qualified Projected Benefit Obligation
   Increase/(Decrease)    Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate (0.25%) $701 
$11,425
Discount rate(0.25%)$472$9,960
Rate of return on plan assets (0.25%) $868 
$—
Rate of return on plan assets(0.25%)$772$—
Rate of increase in compensation 0.25% $301 
$1,488
Rate of increase in compensation0.25%$388$1,916

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Postretirement Benefit CostImpact on 2020 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$49$2,206
Health care cost trend0.25%$76$1,593
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Postretirement Benefit Cost Impact on 2017 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
    Increase/(Decrease)  
Discount rate (0.25%) $231 $3,481
Health care cost trend 0.25% $413 $2,907


Each fluctuation above assumes that the other components of the calculation are held constant.


Costs and FundingEmployer Contributions


Total qualified pension cost for Entergy Texas in 20172020 was $3.5 million.$12.4 million, including $4.3 million in settlement costs. Entergy Texas anticipates 20182021 qualified pension incomecost to be $4.2 million. In 2016, Entergy Texas refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of qualified pension costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified pension costs by $3.6$8.9 million. Entergy Texas contributed $17$5 million to its qualified pension plans in 20172020 and estimates 20182021 pension contributions will be approximately $10.9$7 million, although the 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021.


Total postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income for Entergy Texas in 20172020 was $1.8$8.9 million. Entergy Texas expects 20182020 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income to approximate $6.2$10.9 million. In 2016,2020, Entergy Texas’ postretirement contributions (that is, contributions to the external trusts plus claims payments) were $690 thousand. Entergy Texas refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of other postretirement costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified other postretirement costs by $1.1 million. Entergy Texas contributed $3.1 million to its other postretirement plans in 2017 and estimates 20182021 contributions will be approximately $3.2 million.$66 thousand.


Federal Healthcare LegislationOther Contingencies


See “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits - Federal Healthcare LegislationContingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of Federal Healthcare Legislation.

Other Contingencies

See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.


411

Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


New Accounting Pronouncements


See “New Accounting Pronouncements” section of Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.



420

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




To the shareholdershareholders and Board of Directors of
Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries


Opinion on the Financial Statements


We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows, and changes in common equity (pages 414423 through 418428 and applicable items in pages 5551 through 230)238), for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


Basis for Opinion


These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.


We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.


Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



Critical Audit Matter

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current-period audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Rate and Regulatory Matters —Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries — Refer to Note 2 to the financial statements

Critical Audit Matter Description

The Company is subject to rate regulation by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (the “PUCT”), which has jurisdiction with respect to the rates of electric companies in Texas, and to wholesale rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Management has determined it meets the requirements under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America to prepare its financial statements applying the specialized rules to account for the effects of cost-based rate regulation. Accounting for the economics of rate
421

regulation impacts multiple financial statement line items and disclosures, such as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets and liabilities; income taxes; operating revenues; operation and maintenance expense; and depreciation and amortization expense.

The Company’s rates are subject to regulatory rate-setting processes and annual earnings oversight. Because the PUCT and the FERC set the rates the Company is allowed to charge customers based on allowable costs, including a reasonable return on equity, the Company applies accounting standards that require the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation, including the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities. The Company assesses whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in applicable regulatory and political environments. While the Company has indicated it expects to recover costs from customers through regulated rates, there is a risk that the PUCT and the FERC will not approve: (1) full recovery of the costs of providing utility service, or (2) full recovery of amounts invested in the utility business and a reasonable return on that investment.

We identified the impact of rate regulation as a critical audit matter due to the significant judgments made by management to support its assertions about impacted account balances and disclosures and the high degree of subjectivity involved in assessing the impact of future regulatory orders on the financial statements. Management judgments include assessing the likelihood of recovery in future rates of incurred costs and refunds to customers. Auditing management’s judgments regarding the outcome of future decisions by the PUCT and the FERC, involved especially subjective judgment and specialized knowledge of accounting for rate regulation and the rate setting process.

How the Critical Audit Matter Was Addressed in the Audit

Our audit procedures related to the uncertainty of future decisions by the PUCT and the FERC included the following, among others:

We tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the evaluation of the likelihood of (1) the recovery in future rates of costs incurred as property, plant, and equipment and deferred as regulatory assets, and (2) a refund or a future reduction in rates that should be reported as regulatory liabilities. We also tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the initial recognition of amounts as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets or liabilities; and the monitoring and evaluation of regulatory developments that may affect the likelihood of recovering costs in future rates or of a future reduction in rates.
We evaluated the Company’s disclosures related to the impacts of rate regulation, including the balances recorded and regulatory developments.
We read relevant regulatory orders issued by the PUCT and the FERC for the Company and other public utilities, regulatory statutes, interpretations, procedural memorandums, filings made by intervenors, and other publicly available information to assess the likelihood of recovery in future rates or of a future reduction in rates based on precedents of the PUCT’s and the FERC’s treatment of similar costs under similar circumstances. We evaluated the external information and compared to management’s recorded regulatory asset and liability balances for completeness.
For regulatory matters in process, we inspected the Company’s filings with the PUCT and the FERC, including the base rate case filing, and considered the filings with the PUCT and the FERC by intervenors that may impact the Company’s future rates, for any evidence that might contradict management’s assertions.
We obtained an analysis from management and support from internal and external legal counsel, as appropriate, regarding probability of recovery for regulatory assets or refund or future reduction in rates for regulatory liabilities not yet addressed in a regulatory order to assess management’s assertion that amounts are probable of recovery or a future reduction in rates.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 20182021



We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2001.



422
ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
       
OPERATING REVENUES      
Electric 
$1,544,893
 
$1,615,619
 
$1,707,203
       
OPERATING EXPENSES  
  
  
Operation and Maintenance:  
  
  
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale 225,517
 271,968
 277,810
Purchased power 610,279
 616,597
 709,947
Other operation and maintenance 230,616
 220,566
 254,731
Asset write-off 
 
 23,472
Taxes other than income taxes 79,254
 70,973
 72,945
Depreciation and amortization 117,520
 107,026
 102,410
Other regulatory charges - net 82,328
 82,879
 82,243
TOTAL 1,345,514
 1,370,009
 1,523,558
       
OPERATING INCOME 199,379
 245,610
 183,645
       
OTHER INCOME  
  
  
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 6,722
 7,617
 5,678
Interest and investment income 981
 987
 684
Miscellaneous - net 193
 (746) (798)
TOTAL 7,896
 7,858
 5,564
       
INTEREST EXPENSE  
  
  
Interest expense 86,719
 87,776
 86,024
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction (4,098) (4,943) (3,690)
TOTAL 82,621
 82,833
 82,334
       
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES 124,654
 170,635
 106,875
       
Income taxes 48,481
 63,097
 37,250
       
NET INCOME 
$76,173
 
$107,538
 
$69,625
       
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  




ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING REVENUES   
Electric$1,587,125 $1,488,955 $1,605,902 
OPERATING EXPENSES   
Operation and Maintenance:   
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale238,428 162,544 204,830 
Purchased power510,633 602,563 614,012 
Other operation and maintenance250,170 258,924 238,400 
Taxes other than income taxes72,909 76,366 82,033 
Depreciation and amortization177,738 153,286 128,534 
Other regulatory charges - net90,398 88,770 131,667 
TOTAL1,340,276 1,342,453 1,399,476 
OPERATING INCOME246,849 146,502 206,426 
OTHER INCOME   
Allowance for equity funds used during construction44,073 28,445 9,723 
Interest and investment income1,201 3,072 2,188 
Miscellaneous - net(28)546 (655)
TOTAL45,246 32,063 11,256 
INTEREST EXPENSE   
Interest expense92,920 86,333 87,203 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction(18,940)(13,269)(5,513)
TOTAL73,980 73,064 81,690 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES218,115 105,501 135,992 
Income taxes3,042 (53,896)(26,243)
NET INCOME215,073 159,397 162,235 
Preferred dividend requirements1,882 580 
EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK$213,191 $158,817 $162,235 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

423

ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES      
Net income 
$76,173
 
$107,538
 
$69,625
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:      
Depreciation and amortization 117,520
 107,026
 102,410
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued 42,119
 20,794
 (23,292)
Changes in assets and liabilities:  
  
  
Receivables (15,934) (9,300) 21,443
Fuel inventory (25,054) 9,765
 2,960
Accounts payable 32,842
 (22,462) (16,913)
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued 30,308
 10,018
 3,484
Interest accrued (421) (3,229) (551)
Deferred fuel costs 12,758
 29,419
 36,985
Other working capital accounts (7,852) (3,354) 2,468
Provisions for estimated losses 2,531
 (1,735) (2,899)
Other regulatory assets 184,574
 74,389
 125,133
Other regulatory liabilities 410,968
 2,106
 1,271
Deferred tax rate change recognized as regulatory liability/asset (520,547) 
 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities (49,445) (10,204) (33,474)
Other assets and liabilities 10,856
 (4,170) (4,382)
Net cash flow provided by operating activities 301,396
 306,601
 284,268
INVESTING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Construction expenditures (348,027) (337,963) (320,408)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 6,874
 7,743
 5,751
Insurance proceeds 2,431
 
 
Changes in money pool receivable - net (44,222) (681) 306
Changes in securitization account (232) 710
 (942)
Net cash flow used in investing activities (383,176) (330,191) (315,293)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt 148,277
 123,502
 246,607
Retirement of long-term debt (71,683)
(68,593)
(265,734)
Capital contributions from parent 115,000
 
 
Change in money pool payable - net 
 (22,068) 22,068
Other (482) (5,252) (175)
Net cash flow provided by financing activities 191,112
 27,589
 2,766
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 109,332
 3,999
 (28,259)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 6,181
 2,182
 30,441
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period 
$115,513
 
$6,181
 
$2,182
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:  
  
  
Cash paid (received) during the period for:  
  
  
Interest - net of amount capitalized 
$84,556
 
$88,489
 
$83,290
Income taxes 
($21,107) 
$28,523
 
$60,359
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  



























(Page left blank intentionally)

424
ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
   
  December 31,
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
     
CURRENT ASSETS    
Cash and cash equivalents:    
Cash 
$32
 
$1,216
Temporary cash investments 115,481
 4,965
Total cash and cash equivalents 115,513
 6,181
Securitization recovery trust account 37,683
 37,451
Accounts receivable:  
  
Customer 74,382
 71,803
Allowance for doubtful accounts (463) (828)
Associated companies 90,629
 39,447
Other 9,831
 14,756
Accrued unbilled revenues 50,682
 39,727
Total accounts receivable 225,061
 164,905
Fuel inventory - at average cost 42,731
 37,177
Materials and supplies - at average cost 38,605
 36,631
Prepayments and other 19,710
 18,599
TOTAL 479,303
 300,944
     
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
  
Investments in affiliates - at equity 457
 600
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation) 376
 376
Other 19,235
 18,801
TOTAL 20,068
 19,777
     
UTILITY PLANT  
  
Electric 4,569,295
 4,274,069
Construction work in progress 102,088
 111,227
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT 4,671,383
 4,385,296
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization 1,579,387
 1,526,057
UTILITY PLANT - NET 3,091,996
 2,859,239
     
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
  
Regulatory assets:  
  
Regulatory asset for income taxes - net 
 105,816
  Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $313,123 as of December 31, 2017 and $384,609 as of December 31, 2016) 661,398
 740,156
Other 26,973
 7,149
TOTAL 688,371
 853,121
     
TOTAL ASSETS 
$4,279,738
 
$4,033,081
     
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  



ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES   
Net income$215,073 $159,397 $162,235 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization177,738 153,286 128,534 
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued36,033 20,143 (39,545)
Changes in assets and liabilities:   
Receivables(30,082)58,445 (17,099)
Fuel inventory(5,938)(4,926)64 
Accounts payable(23,692)(33,646)43,319 
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued2,730 (3,805)7,854 
Interest accrued1,864 (5,363)(1,201)
Deferred fuel costs72,355 (6,696)(47,604)
Other working capital accounts(11,837)(13,822)1,328 
Provisions for estimated losses274 (5,748)3,741 
Other regulatory assets(12,065)85,400 63,350 
Other regulatory liabilities(57,477)(105,517)(19,336)
Pension and other postretirement liabilities(28,825)(7,152)(13,135)
Other assets and liabilities39,174 (3,257)59,248 
Net cash flow provided by operating activities375,325 286,739 331,753 
INVESTING ACTIVITIES   
Construction expenditures(895,857)(898,090)(451,988)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction44,073 28,526 9,861 
Proceeds from sale of assets3,753 
Payment for purchase of assets(4,931)
Changes in money pool receivable - net6,580 (11,181)44,903 
Changes in securitization account1,487 2,465 (2,502)
Net cash flow used in investing activities(848,648)(878,280)(395,973)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES   
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt937,725 986,019 
Retirement of long-term debt(367,565)(578,593)(74,950)
Capital contributions from parent175,000 185,000 
Proceeds from the issuance of preferred stock33,188 
Change in money pool payable - net(22,389)22,389 
Dividends paid:   
Common stock(30,000)
Preferred stock(2,064)
Other(4,106)1,189 1,324 
Net cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities708,990 604,414 (51,237)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents235,667 12,873 (115,457)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period12,929 56 115,513 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$248,596 $12,929 $56 
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:   
Cash paid during the period for:   
Interest - net of amount capitalized$89,077 $89,402 $85,719 
Income taxes$2,792 $17,010 $20,787 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

425
ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
   
  December 31,
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
CURRENT LIABILITIES    
Accounts payable:    
Associated companies 
$59,347
 
$47,867
Other 126,095
 77,342
Customer deposits 40,925
 44,419
Taxes accrued 45,659
 15,351
Interest accrued 25,556
 25,977
Deferred fuel costs 67,301
 54,543
Other 8,132
 9,388
TOTAL 373,015
 274,887
     
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued 544,642
 1,027,647
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits 11,983
 12,934
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net 412,620
 
Other regulatory liabilities 6,850
 8,502
Asset retirement cost liabilities 6,835
 6,470
Accumulated provisions 10,115
 7,584
Pension and other postretirement liabilities 17,853
 67,313
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $358,104 as of December 31, 2017 and $429,043 as of December 31, 2016) 1,587,150
 1,508,407
Other 48,508
 50,343
TOTAL 2,646,556
 2,689,200
     
Commitments and Contingencies 

 

     
COMMON EQUITY  
  
Common stock, no par value, authorized 200,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding 46,525,000 shares in 2017 and 2016 49,452
 49,452
Paid-in capital 596,994
 481,994
Retained earnings 613,721
 537,548
TOTAL 1,260,167
 1,068,994
     
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 
$4,279,738
 
$4,033,081
     
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  




ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT ASSETS  
Cash and cash equivalents:  
Cash$26 $25 
Temporary cash investments248,570 12,904 
Total cash and cash equivalents248,596 12,929 
Securitization recovery trust account36,233 37,720 
Accounts receivable:  
Customer103,221 59,365 
Allowance for doubtful accounts(16,810)(471)
Associated companies18,892 24,001 
Other11,780 17,050 
Accrued unbilled revenues56,411 50,048 
Total accounts receivable173,494 149,993 
Fuel inventory - at average cost53,531 47,593 
Materials and supplies - at average cost56,227 46,056 
Prepayments and other20,165 21,012 
TOTAL588,246 315,303 
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
Investments in affiliates - at equity349 396 
Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation)376 376 
Other19,889 20,077 
TOTAL20,614 20,849 
UTILITY PLANT  
Electric6,007,687 5,199,027 
Construction work in progress879,908 760,354 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT6,887,595 5,959,381 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization1,864,494 1,770,852 
UTILITY PLANT - NET5,023,101 4,188,529 
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
Regulatory assets:  
Other regulatory assets (includes securitization property of $78,590 as of December 31, 2020 and $160,375 as of December 31, 2019)524,713 512,648 
Other70,397 33,393 
TOTAL595,110 546,041 
TOTAL ASSETS$6,227,071 $5,070,722 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

426

ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
    
 Common Equity  
 Common Stock Paid-in Capital Retained Earnings Total
 (In Thousands)
        
Balance at December 31, 2014
$49,452
 
$481,994
 
$360,385
 
$891,831
Net income
 
 69,625
 69,625
Balance at December 31, 2015
$49,452
 
$481,994
 
$430,010
 
$961,456
Net income
 
 107,538
 107,538
Balance at December 31, 2016
$49,452
 
$481,994
 
$537,548
 
$1,068,994
Net income
 
 76,173
 76,173
Capital contributions from parent
 115,000
 
 115,000
Balance at December 31, 2017
$49,452
 
$596,994
 
$613,721
 
$1,260,167
        
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  
ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Currently maturing long-term debt$200,000 $0 
Accounts payable:  
Associated companies55,944 58,055 
Other350,947 188,460 
Customer deposits36,282 40,232 
Taxes accrued52,438 49,708 
Interest accrued20,856 18,992 
Current portion of unprotected excess accumulated deferred income taxes29,249 26,552 
Deferred fuel costs85,356 13,001 
Other12,370 10,521 
TOTAL843,442 405,521 
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued639,422 585,413 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits9,942 10,559 
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net175,594 225,980 
Other regulatory liabilities32,297 42,085 
Asset retirement cost liabilities8,063 7,631 
Accumulated provisions8,382 8,108 
Long-term debt (includes securitization bonds of $123,066 as of December 31, 2020 and $205,349 as of December 31, 2019)2,293,708 1,922,956 
Other58,643 63,062 
TOTAL3,226,051 2,865,794 
Commitments and Contingencies00
EQUITY  
Common stock, no par value, authorized 200,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding 46,525,000 shares in 2020 and 201949,452 49,452 
Paid-in capital955,162 780,182 
Retained earnings1,117,964 934,773 
Total common shareholder's equity2,122,578 1,764,407 
Preferred stock without sinking fund35,000 35,000 
TOTAL2,157,578 1,799,407 
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY$6,227,071 $5,070,722 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  



427
ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
          
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (In Thousands)
          
Operating revenues
$1,544,893
 
$1,615,619
 
$1,707,203
 
$1,851,982
 
$1,728,799
Net income
$76,173
 
$107,538
 
$69,625
 
$74,804
 
$57,881
Total assets
$4,279,738
 
$4,033,081
 
$3,898,582
 
$3,897,989
 
$3,909,470
Long-term obligations (a)
$1,587,150
 
$1,508,407
 
$1,451,967
 
$1,268,835
 
$1,544,549
          
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt).
          
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (Dollars In Millions)
          
Electric Operating Revenues: 
  
  
  
  
Residential
$636
 
$613
 
$633
 
$654
 
$596
Commercial378
 356
 369
 384
 327
Industrial384
 365
 372
 422
 325
Governmental25
 24
 25
 26
 24
Total retail1,423
 1,358
 1,399
 1,486
 1,272
Sales for resale: 
  
  
  
  
Associated companies58
 178
 259
 316
 369
Non-associated companies22
 40
 14
 23
 47
Other42
 40
 35
 27
 41
Total
$1,545
 
$1,616
 
$1,707
 
$1,852
 
$1,729
          
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh):   
  
  
  
Residential5,716
 5,836
 5,889
 5,810
 5,726
Commercial4,548
 4,570
 4,548
 4,471
 4,402
Industrial7,521
 7,493
 7,036
 7,140
 6,404
Governmental273
 283
 276
 277
 282
Total retail18,058
 18,182
 17,749
 17,698
 16,814
Sales for resale: 
  
  
  
  
Associated companies1,534
 4,625
 5,853
 4,763
 6,287
Non-associated companies729
 1,086
 254
 200
 712
Total20,321
 23,893
 23,856
 22,661
 23,813




ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
 Common Equity 
 Preferred StockCommon StockPaid-in CapitalRetained EarningsTotal
 (In Thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2017$0 $49,452 $596,994 $613,721 $1,260,167 
Net income162,235 162,235 
Balance at December 31, 2018$0 $49,452 $596,994 $775,956 $1,422,402 
Net income159,397 159,397 
Capital contributions from parent0185,000 185,000 
Preferred stock issuance35,000 (1,812)33,188 
Preferred stock dividends(580)(580)
Balance at December 31, 2019$35,000 $49,452 $780,182 $934,773 $1,799,407 
Net income215,073 215,073 
Capital contributions from parent175,000 175,000 
Common stock dividends(30,000)(30,000)
Preferred stock dividends(1,882)(1,882)
Other(20)(20)
Balance at December 31, 2020$35,000 $49,452 $955,162 $1,117,964 $2,157,578 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

428


ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
 20202019201820172016
 (In Thousands)
Operating revenues$1,587,125 $1,488,955 $1,605,902 $1,544,893 $1,615,619 
Net income$215,073 $159,397 $162,235 $76,173 $107,538 
Total assets$6,227,071 $5,070,722 $4,400,020 $4,279,738 $4,033,081 
Long-term obligations (a)$2,293,708 $1,922,956 $1,013,735 $1,587,150 $1,508,407 
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt).
 20202019201820172016
 (Dollars In Millions)
Electric Operating Revenues:     
Residential$672 $658 $674 $636 $613 
Commercial365 343 381 378 356 
Industrial386 373 394 384 365 
Governmental23 22 25 25 24 
Total billed retail1,446 1,396 1,474 1,423 1,358 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies40 52 59 58 178 
Non-associated companies60 39 22 40 
Other41 34 34 42 40 
Total$1,587 $1,489 $1,606 $1,545 $1,616 
Billed Electric Energy Sales (GWh):    
Residential6,146 6,039 6,135 5,716 5,836 
Commercial4,386 4,667 4,747 4,548 4,570 
Industrial7,885 8,043 8,052 7,521 7,493 
Governmental260 259 286 273 283 
Total retail18,677 19,008 19,220 18,058 18,182 
Sales for resale:     
Associated companies1,203 1,472 1,516 1,534 4,625 
Non-associated companies810 343 962 729 1,086 
Total20,690 20,823 21,698 20,321 23,893 

429


SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.


MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS


System Energy’s principal asset currently consists of an ownership interest and a leasehold interest in Grand Gulf.  The capacity and energy from its 90% interest is sold under the Unit Power Sales Agreement to its only four customers, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.  System Energy’s operating revenues are derived from the allocation of the capacity, energy, and related costs associated with its 90% interest in Grand Gulf pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement.  Payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are System Energy’s only source of operating revenues. As discussed in “Complaints Against System Energy” below, System Energy is currently involved in proceedings at the FERC commenced by the retail regulators of its customers regarding its return on equity, its capital structure, its renewal of the sale-leaseback of 11.5% of Grand Gulf, the treatment of uncertain tax positions in rate base, and the rates it charges under the Unit Power Sales Agreement.


Results of Operations


2020 Compared to 2019

Net Income


2017 Compared to 2016

Net income decreased $18.1 million primarily due toremained relatively unchanged. An increase in operating revenues resulting from changes in rate base was substantially offset by higher provisions against revenue, as compared to prior year. A provision for rate refund was recorded in 20172020 to reflect a one-time credit of $25.2 million provided for in the Federal Power Act section 205 filing made by System Energy in December 2020. Provisions against revenue were recorded in 2019 in connection with the return on equity complaint against System Energy’s return on equity and a higher effective income tax rate in 2017.Energy. See “Federal Regulation - ComplaintComplaints Against System Energy” below for further discussion of these items and other proceedings involving System Energy at the FERC. The one-time credit is discussed in the Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue part of that section. The return on equity complaint against System Energy.is discussed in the Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints part of that section.

2016 Compared to 2015

Net income decreased $14.6 million primarily due to a higher effective income tax rate in 2016.


Income Taxes


The effective income tax rates were 17.2% for 2020 and 13.4% for 2017, 2016, and 2015 were 47.1%, 42.3%, and 32.3%, respectively. The difference in the effective income tax rate of 47.1% for 2017 versus the statutory rate of 35% for 2017 was primarily due to certain book and tax differences related to utility plant items and state income taxes.2019. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 35%21% to the effective income tax rates.


Income Tax Legislation2019 Compared to 2018


See MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Results of Operations” in Item 7 of System Energy’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Income Tax Legislation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysisyear ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal income tax legislation enacted in December 2017. Note 3 to the financial statements contains additional discussion of the effect of the Act on 2017 results of operations and financial position, the provisions of the Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Act, and Note 22019 compared to the financial statements discusses proceedings commenced or other responses by Entergy’s regulators to the Act.2018.




420
430

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Liquidity and Capital Resources


Cash Flow


Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016,2020, 2019, and 20152018 were as follows:
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period$68,534 $95,685 $287,187 
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities(145,462)300,141 101,328 
Investing activities(206,443)(119,553)(286,161)
Financing activities525,840 (207,739)(6,669)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents173,935 (27,151)(191,502)
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$242,469 $68,534 $95,685 
 2017 2016 2015
 (In Thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
$245,863
 
$230,661
 
$223,179
      
Net cash provided by (used in):   
  
Operating activities371,278
 341,939
 502,536
Investing activities(174,250) (232,602) (137,562)
Financing activities(155,704) (94,135) (357,492)
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents41,324
 15,202
 7,482
      
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
$287,187
 
$245,863
 
$230,661


2020 Compared to 2019

Operating Activities


Net cash flow provided bySystem Energy’s operating activities increased $29.3used $145.5 million of cash in 20172020 compared to providing $300.1 million of cash in 2019 primarily due to:


a decrease in spendingan increase of $35.7 million on nuclear refueling outages in 2017 as compared to the prior year;
the timing of collection of receivables; and
a decrease of $9.9 million in interest paid in 2017.

The increase was partially offset by:

proceeds of $28.4 million received in August 2016 from the DOE resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously expensed. See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation; and
a decrease of $21.3$382 million in income tax refundstaxes paid in 2017.2020. System Energy receivedmade income tax refundspayments of $384.3 million in 2017 and 20162020 in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement. The 2020 income tax refunds in 2017 and 2016 resultedpayments are primarily fromrelated to the adoptionresolution of a new accounting method for income tax purposes in which System Energy will treat itsthe 2014-2015 IRS audit regarding the treatment of nuclear decommissioning costs as production costs of electricity includableincluded in cost of goods sold. Seesold, which is discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the adoption of the new accounting method.in Tax Accounting Methods;

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $160.6 million in 2016 primarily due to:

a decrease of $90.5 million in income tax refunds in 2016. System Energy received income tax refunds in 2016 and 2015 in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement. The income tax refunds in 2016 and 2015 resulted primarily from the adoption of a new accounting method for income tax purposes in which System Energy will treat its nuclear decommissioning costs as production costs of electricity includable in cost of goods sold. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the adoption of the new accounting method; and
an increase in spending of $35.1$34.9 million on nuclear refueling outages in 20162020 as compared to 2015.prior year; and

timing of payments to vendors.

The decreaseincrease in cash used was partially offset by proceeds of $28.4$35 million received in August 2016December 2020 from the DOE resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously expensed. See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

421

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Investing Activities


Net cash flow used in investing activities decreased $58.4increased by $86.9 million in 20172020 primarily due to a decreaseto:

an increase of $159.4$77.2 million as a result of fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements, in the Utility business, material and services deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle. cycle; and
an increase of $28 million in nuclear construction expenditures as a result of spending in 2020 on Grand Gulf outage projects.

The decreaseincrease was partially offset by money pool activity and proceeds of $15.8$5.5 million received in August 2016December 2020 from the DOE resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously capitalized. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

431

Increases in System Energy’s receivable from the money pool are a use of cash flowEnergy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and System Energy’s receivable from the money pool increased by $77.9 million in 2017 compared to decreasing by $6.1 million in 2016.  The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.Analysis

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $95 million in 2016 primarily due to:

fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements in the Utility business, material and services deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle; and
an increase in nuclear construction expenditures primarily as a result of a higher scope of work performed in 2016 on Grand Gulf outage projects, partially offset by decreased spending in 2016 on compliance with NRC post-Fukushima requirements.

The increase was partially offset by money pool activity and proceeds of $15.8 million received in August 2016 from the DOE resulting from litigation regarding spent nuclear fuel storage costs that were previously capitalized. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.


Decreases in System Energy’s receivable from the money pool are a source of cash flow and System Energy’s receivable from the money pool decreased by $6.1$55.3 million in 20162020 compared to increasingdecreasing by $37.6$47.8 million in 2015.2019.  The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.


Financing Activities


Net cash flow used inSystem Energy’s financing activities increased $61.6provided $525.8 million of cash in 20172020 compared to using $207.7 million of cash in 2019 primarily due to:to the following activity:


a $350 million capital contribution from Entergy Corporation in order to maintain System Energy’s capital structure in conjunction with the tax payments discussed in “Operating Activities”;
the issuance in December 2020 of $200 million of 2.14% Series mortgage bonds;
the issuance in October 2020 of $90 million of 2.05% Series K notes by the System Energy nuclear fuel company variable interest entity;
a decrease in net repayments of short-term$50.7 million of long-term borrowings of $49.1 millionin 2020 on the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity’s credit facility in 2017 as compared to net short-term borrowings of $66.9 million on the nuclear fuel variable interest entity’s credit facility in 2016;facility; and
the payment in February 2017, at maturity, of $50 million of the System Energy nuclear fuel company variable interest entity’s 4.02% Series H notes.

The increase was partially offset by:

net long-term borrowings of $50 million in 2017 on the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity’s credit facility;
a decrease of $32.4$43.6 million in common stock dividends and distributions in 20172020 in order to maintain System Energy’s targeted capital structure; andstructure.
the repayment in May 2016 of $22 million of 5.875% pollution control revenue bonds due 2022 issued on behalf of System Energy.


422

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Net cash flow used in financing activities decreased $263.4 million in 2016 primarily due to:

net borrowings of $66.9 million on the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity’s credit facility in 2016 compared to net repayments of $20.4 million on the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity’s credit facility in 2015;
a decrease of $61.8 million in common stock dividends and distributions as a result of lower operating cash flows and higher nuclear fuel purchases in 2016 as compared to the prior year;
the redemption in April 2015, at maturity, of $60 million of System Energy nuclear fuel company variable interest entity’s 5.33% Series G notes; and
redemption in May 2015 of $35 million and in November 2015 of $25 million of System Energy’s 5.875% Series governmental bonds due 2022.

The decrease was partially offset by the repayment in May 2016 of $22 million of 5.875% pollution control revenue bonds due 2022 issued on behalf of System Energy.


See Note 5 to the financial statements for additional details of long-term debt.


2019 Compared to 2018

See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Cash Flow” in Item 7 of System Energy’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2020, for discussion of operating, investing, and financing cash flow activities for 2019 compared to 2018.

Capital Structure


System Energy’s capitalizationdebt to capital ratio is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table. The decrease in the debt to capital ratio for System Energy is primarily due to the paymentcapital contribution from Entergy Corporation, partially offset by the issuance of long-term debt in February 2017, at maturity, of $50 million of the System Energy nuclear fuel company variable interest entity’s 4.02% Series H notes.2020.
 December 31,
2020
December 31,
2019
Debt to capital42.7 %43.5 %
Effect of subtracting cash(8.5 %)(3.3 %)
Net debt to net capital34.2 %40.2 %
 December 31,
2017
 December 31,
2016
Debt to capital44.5% 45.5%
Effect of subtracting cash(16.0%) (12.0%)
Net debt to net capital28.5% 33.5%


Net debt consists of debt less cash and cash equivalents.  Debt consists of short-term borrowings and long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion.  Capital consists of debt and common equity.  Net capital consists of capital less cash and cash equivalents.  System Energy uses the debt to capital ratio in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating System Energy’s financial condition.  System Energy uses the net debt to net capital ratio in analyzing its financial condition and believes it provides useful information to its investors and creditors in evaluating System Energy’s financial condition because net debt indicates System Energy’s outstanding debt position that could not be readily satisfied by cash and cash equivalents on hand.


432

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

System Energy seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings. To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a dividend or both,a capital distribution, or a combination of the three, in appropriate amounts to maintain the targeted capital structure.  To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments and other uses of cash, System Energy may issue incremental debt or reduce dividends, or both, to maintain its targeted capital structure. In addition, System Energy may receive equity contributions to maintain its capital structure for certain circumstances that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reduced dividends.


Uses of Capital


System Energy requires capital resources for:


construction and other capital investments;
debt maturities or retirements;

423

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

working capital purposes, including the financing of fuel costs;costs and tax payments; and
dividend, distribution, and interest payments.


Following are the amounts of System Energy’s planned construction and other capital investments.
 202120222023
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:  
Generation$90 $145 $140 
Utility Support15 10 15 
Total$105 $155 $155 
 2018 2019 2020
 (In Millions)
Planned construction and capital investment:     
Generation
$180
 
$130
 
$150
Utility Support15
 15
 10
Total
$195
 
$145
 
$160


Following are the amounts of System Energy’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.
 20212022-20232024-2025After 2025Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)$138 $444 $246 $299 $1,127 
Purchase obligations (b)$6 $53 $47 $40 $146 
 2018 2019-2020 2021-2022 After 2022 Total
 (In Millions)
Long-term debt (a)
$124
 
$121
 
$199
 
$493
 
$937
Purchase obligations (b)
$38
 
$39
 
$34
 
$—
 
$111


(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services. For System Energy, it includes nuclear fuel purchase obligations.

(a)Includes estimated interest payments.  Long-term debt is discussed in Note 5 to the financial statements.
(b)Purchase obligations represent the minimum purchase obligation or cancellation charge for contractual obligations to purchase goods or services. For System Energy, it includes nuclear fuel purchase obligations.

In addition to the contractual obligations given above, System Energy expects to contribute approximately $13.8$18.7 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately $16$22 thousand to other postretirement health care and life insurance plans in 2018,2021, although the 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021. See “Critical Accounting Estimates– Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” below for a discussion of qualified pension and other postretirement benefits funding.


Also in addition to the contractual obligations, System Energy has $433$14.2 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes and payments for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions.  See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.


433

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
In addition to routine spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate includes specific Grand Gulf investments and initiatives.


As a wholly-owned subsidiary, System Energy dividends its earnings to Entergy Corporation at a percentage determined monthly.


Sources of Capital


System Energy’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:


internally generated funds;
cash on hand;
debt issuances;issuances, including debt issuances to refund or retire currently outstanding or maturing indebtedness;
equity contributions; and
bank financing under new or existing facilities.


424

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



System Energy may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest and dividend rates are favorable.


All debt and common stock issuances by System Energy require prior regulatory approval.  Debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its bond indenturesindenture and other agreements.  System Energy has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.


System Energy’s receivables from the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.
2020201920182017
(In Thousands)
$4,004$59,298$107,122$111,667
2017 2016 2015 2014
(In Thousands)
$111,667 $33,809 $39,926 $2,373


See Note 4 to the financial statements for a description of the money pool.


The System Energy nuclear fuel company variable interest entity has a credit facility in the amount of $120 million scheduled to expire in May 2019.September 2022. As of December 31, 2017, $17.8 million in letters of credit to support a like amount of commercial paper issued and $50 million in2020, no loans were outstanding under the System Energy nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the variable interest entity credit facility.


System Energy obtained authorizations from the FERC through October 2019July 14, 2022 for the following:


short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $200 million at any time outstanding;
long-term borrowings and security issuances; and
long-term borrowings by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entity.


See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of System Energy’s short-term borrowing limits.


Federal Regulation


See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation– Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.


Complaint
434

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

Complaints Against System Energy


Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints

In January 2017 the APSC and MPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy. The complaint seeks a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Arkansas also sells some of its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under separate agreements. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%. , which was established in a rate proceeding that became final in July 2001.

The APSC and MPSC complaint alleges that the return on equity is unjust and unreasonable because current capital market and other considerations indicate that it is excessive. The complaint requests the FERC to institute proceedings to investigate the return on equity and establish a lower return on equity, and also requests that the FERC establish January 23, 2017 as a refund effective date. The complaint includes return on equity analysis that purports to establish that the range of reasonable return on equity for System Energy is between 8.37% and 8.67%. System Energy answered the complaint in February 2017 and disputes that a return on equity of 8.37% to 8.67% is just and reasonable. The LPSC and the City Council intervened in the proceeding expressing support for the complaint. System Energy is recording a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding. In September 2017 the FERC established a refund effective date of January 23, 2017 consolidated the return on equity complaint with the proceeding described in Unit Power Sales Agreement below, and directed the parties to engage in settlement proceedings before an ALJ. The parties have been unable to settle the return on equity issue and a FERC hearing judge was assigned in July 2018. The 15-month refund period in connection with the APSC/MPSC complaint expired on April 23, 2018.


In April 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint with the FERC against System Energy seeking an additional 15-month refund period.  The LPSC complaint requests similar relief from the FERC with respect to System Energy’s return on equity and also requests the FERC to investigate System Energy’s capital structure.  The APSC, MPSC, and City Council intervened in the proceeding, filed an answer expressing support for the complaint, and asked the FERC to consolidate this proceeding with the proceeding initiated by the complaint of the APSC and MPSC in January 2017. System Energy answered the LPSC complaint in May 2018 and also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. 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 27, 2018. The 15-month refund period in connection with the LPSC return on equity complaint expired on July 26, 2019.

The portion of the LPSC’s complaint dealing with return on equity was subsequently consolidated with the APSC and MPSC complaint for hearing. The parties addressed 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 complaint for settlement and hearing proceedings. Settlement proceedings 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. The 15-month refund period in connection with the capital structure complaint was from September 24, 2018 to December 23, 2019.

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
425
435

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

proceedings beforeprospective basis, the LPSC argues for an ALJ.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. 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 trial staff filed its direct and answering testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC trial staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.89% based on the application of FERC’s proposed methodology. The FERC trial 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 trial staff. Among other things, System Energy’s testimony rebutted arguments raised by the FERC trial 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.

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 capital structure complaint with the ongoing return on equity proceeding and set new procedural deadlines for the consolidated hearing.

In August 2019 the LPSC and the APSC and MPSC filed rebuttal testimony in the return on equity proceeding and direct and answering testimony relating to System Energy’s capital structure. The LPSC re-argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.81% for the first refund period and 7.97% for the second refund period. The APSC and MPSC argue for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.26% for the first refund period and 8.32% for the second refund period. With respect to capital structure, the LPSC proposes that the FERC establish a hypothetical capital structure for System Energy for ratemaking purposes. Specifically, the LPSC proposes that System Energy’s common equity ratio be set to Entergy Corporation’s equity ratio of 37% equity and 63% debt. In the alternative, the LPSC argues that the equity ratio should be no higher than 49%, the composite equity ratio of System Energy and the other Entergy operating companies who purchase under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The APSC and MPSC recommend that 35.98% be set as the common equity ratio for System Energy. As an alternative, the APSC and MPSC propose that System Energy’s common equity be set at 46.75% based on the median equity ratio of the proxy group for setting the return on equity.

In September 2019 the FERC trial staff filed its rebuttal testimony in the return on equity proceeding. For the first refund period, the FERC trial staff calculates an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 9.40% based on the application of the FERC’s proposed methodology and an updated proxy group. For the second refund period, based on the study period ending May 31, 2019, the FERC trial staff rebuttal testimony argues for a return on equity of 9.63%. In September 2019 the FERC trial staff also filed direct and answering testimony relating to System Energy’s capital structure. The FERC trial staff argues that the average capital structure of the proxy group used to develop System Energy’s return on equity should be used to establish the capital structure. Using this
436

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

approach, the FERC trial staff calculates the average capital structure for its proposed proxy group of 46.74% common equity, and 53.26% debt.

In October 2019, System Energy filed answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s, the LPSC’s, and the APSC’s and MPSC’s arguments for the use of a hypothetical capital structure and arguing that the use of System Energy’s actual capital structure is just and reasonable.

In November 2019, in a proceeding that did not involve System Energy, the FERC issued an order addressing the methodology for determining the return on equity applicable to transmission owners in MISO. Thereafter, the procedural schedule in the System Energy proceeding was amended to allow the participants to file supplemental testimony addressing the order in the MISO transmission owner proceeding (Opinion No. 569).

In February 2020 the LPSC, the MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569 and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy.For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 8.44%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 8.41%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.22%.For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569 methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.89%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 8.01% may be appropriate; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 8.66%.

In April 2020, System Energy filed supplemental answering testimony addressing Opinion No. 569.System Energy argues that the Opinion No. 569 methodology is conceptually and analytically defective for purposes of establishing just and reasonable authorized return on equity determinations and proposes an alternative approach.As its primary recommendation, System Energy continues to support the return on equity determinations in its March 2019 testimony for the first refund period and its June 2019 testimony for the second refund period.Under the Opinion No. 569 methodology, System Energy calculates a “presumptively just and reasonable range” for the authorized return on equity for the first refund period of 8.57% to 9.52%, and for the second refund period of 8.28% to 9.11%.System Energy argues that these ranges are not just and reasonable results.Under its proposed alternative methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 10.26% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

In May 2020 the FERC issued an order on rehearing of Opinion No. 569 (Opinion No. 569-A).In June 2020 the procedural schedule in the System Energy proceeding was further revised in order to allow parties fail to comeaddress the Opinion No. 569-A methodology.Pursuant to the revised schedule, in June 2020, the LPSC, MPSC and APSC, and the FERC trial staff filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569-A and how it would affect the return on equity evaluation for the two complaint periods concerning System Energy.For the first refund period, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, the LPSC argues for an agreement duringauthorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.97%; the MPSC and APSC argue for an authorized return on equity of 9.24%; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.49%.For the second refund period and on a prospective basis, based on their respective interpretations and applications of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, the LPSC argues for an authorized return on equity for System Energy of 7.78%; the MPSC and APSC argue that an authorized return on equity of 9.15% may be appropriate if the second complaint is not dismissed; and the FERC trial staff argues for an authorized return on equity of 9.09% if the second complaint is not dismissed.

Pursuant to the revised procedural schedule, in July 2020, System Energy filed supplemental testimony addressing Opinion No. 569-A.System Energy argues that strict application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology produces results inconsistent with investor requirements and does not provide a sound basis on which
437

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
to evaluate System Energy’s authorized return on equity.As its primary recommendation, System Energy argues for the use of a methodology that incorporates four separate financial models, including the constant growth form of the discounted cash flow model and the empirical capital asset pricing model.Based on application of its recommended methodology, System Energy argues for an authorized return on equity of 10.12% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.Under the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, System Energy calculates an authorized return on equity of 9.44% for the first refund period, which also falls within the presumptively just and reasonable range calculated for the second refund period and prospectively.

The parties and FERC trial staff filed final rounds of testimony in August 2020. The hearing before a FERC ALJ occurred in late-September through early-October 2020, post-hearing briefing took place in November and December 2020, and the initial decision is due in March 2021. System Energy recorded a provision against revenue for the potential outcome of this proceeding.

Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue

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. The complaint alleges that System Energy violated the filed rate and the FERC’s ratemaking and accounting requirements when it included in Unit Power Sales Agreement billings the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, and that System Energy is double-recovering costs by including both the lease payments and the capital additions in Unit Power Sales Agreement billings. The complaint also claims that System Energy was imprudent in entering into the sale-leaseback renewal because the Utility operating companies that purchase Grand Gulf’s output from System Energy could have obtained cheaper capacity and energy in the MISO markets. The complaint further alleges that System Energy violated various other reporting and accounting requirements and should have sought prior FERC approval of the lease renewal. The complaint seeks various forms of relief from the FERC. The complaint seeks refunds for capital addition costs for all years in which they were recorded in allegedly non-formula accounts or, alternatively, the disallowance of the return on equity for the capital additions in those years plus interest. The complaint also asks that the FERC disallow and refund the lease costs of the sale-leaseback renewal on grounds of imprudence, investigate System Energy’s treatment of a DOE litigation payment, and impose certain forward-looking procedural protections, including audit rights for retail regulators of the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rates. The APSC, MPSC, and City Council intervened in the proceeding.

In June 2018, System Energy and Entergy Services filed a motion to dismiss and an answer to the LPSC complaint denying that System Energy’s treatment of the sale-leaseback renewal and capital additions violated the terms of the filed rate or any other FERC ratemaking, accounting, or legal requirements or otherwise constituted double recovery. The response also argued that the complaint is inconsistent with a FERC-approved settlement proceedings,to which the LPSC is a prehearing conferenceparty and that explicitly authorizes System Energy to recover its lease payments. Finally, the response argued that both the capital additions and the sale-leaseback renewal were prudent investments and the LPSC complaint fails to justify any disallowance or refunds. The response also offered to submit formula rate protocols for the Unit Power Sales Agreement similar to the procedures used for reviewing transmission rates under the MISO tariff. In September 2018 the FERC issued an order setting the complaint for hearing and settlement proceedings. The FERC established a refund effective date of May 18, 2018.

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 sought refunds that include the renewal lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015), rate base reductions for accumulated deferred income tax associated with uncertain tax positions, and the cost of capital additions associated with the sale-leaseback interest, as well as interest on those amounts.

438

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

In June 2019 System Energy filed answering testimony 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 costs over the 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.

In August 2019 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony seeking refunds for rate base reductions for liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions. The FERC trial staff also argued that System Energy recovered $32 million more than it should have in depreciation expense for capital additions. In September 2019, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony disputing the FERC trial staff’s arguments for refunds, stating that the FERC trial staff’s position regarding depreciation rates for capital additions is not unreasonable, but explaining that any change in depreciation expense is only one element of a Unit Power Sales Agreement re-billing calculation. Adjustments to depreciation expense in any re-billing under the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate will also involve changes to accumulated depreciation, accumulated deferred income taxes, and other formula elements as needed. In October 2019 the LPSC filed rebuttal testimony increasing the amount of refunds sought for liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC seeks approximately $512 million plus interest, which is approximately $191 million through December 31, 2020.  The FERC trial staff also filed rebuttal testimony in which it seeks refunds of a similar amount as the LPSC for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.  The LPSC testimony also argued that adjustments to depreciation rates should affect rate base on a prospective basis only.

A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019.In April 2020 the ALJ issued an initial decision.Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues.First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million.The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service.The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy.In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively.Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities.If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through December 31, 2020, is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approximately $110 million through December 31, 2020.The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward.Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections.If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through December 31, 2020.

The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC.The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC.In June 2020, System Energy, the LPSC, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions, challenging several of the initial decision’s findings.System Energy’s brief on exceptions challenged the initial decision’s limitations on recovery of the lease renewal payments, its proposed rate base refund for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, and its proposal to asymmetrically treat interest on bill corrections for depreciation expense adjustments.The LPSC’s and the FERC trial staff’s briefs on
439

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
exceptions each challenged the initial decision’s allowance for recovery of the cost of service associated with the lease renewal based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, its calculation of the remaining net book value of the leased assets, and the amount of the initial decision’s proposed rate base refund for the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions.The LPSC’s brief on exceptions also challenged the initial decision’s proposal that depreciation expense adjustments include retroactive adjustments to rate base and its finding that section 203 of the Federal Power Act did not apply to the lease renewal.The FERC trial staff’s brief on exceptions also challenged the initial decision’s finding that the FERC need not institute a formal investigation into System Energy’s tariff.In October 2020, System Energy, the LPSC, the MPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed briefs opposing exceptions. System Energy opposed the exceptions filed by the LPSC and the FERC trial staff. The LPSC, MPSC, APSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff opposed the exceptions filed by System Energy. Also in October 2020 the MPSC, APSC, and the City Council filed briefs adopting the exceptions of the LPSC and the FERC trial staff. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part.Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision.

In addition, in September 2020, the IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA) and Entergy executed it.The NOPA memorializes the IRS’s decision to adjust the 2015 consolidated federal income tax return of Entergy Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries, including System Energy, with regard to the uncertain decommissioning tax position.Pursuant to the audit resolution documented in the NOPA, the IRS allowed System Energy’s inclusion of $102 million of future nuclear decommissioning costs in System Energy’s cost of goods sold for the 2015 tax year, roughly 10% of the requested deduction, but disallowed the balance of the position. In September 2020, System Energy filed a motion to lodge the NOPA into the record in the FERC proceeding. In October 2020 the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed oppositions to System Energy’s motion. As a result of the NOPA issued by the IRS in September 2020, System Energy filed, in October 2020, a new Federal Power Act section 205 filing at FERC to establish an ongoing rate base credit for the accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the decommissioning uncertain tax position. On a prospective basis beginning with the October 2020 bill, System Energy proposes to include the accumulated deferred income taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position as a credit to rate base under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In November 2020 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a protest to the filing, and System Energy responded.

In November 2020 the IRS issued a Revenue Agent’s Report (RAR) for the 2014/2015 tax year and in December 2020 Entergy executed it. The RAR contained the same adjustment to the uncertain nuclear decommissioning tax position as that which the IRS had announced in the NOPA. In December 2020, System Energy filed a motion to lodge the RAR into the record in the FERC proceeding addressing the uncertain tax position rate base issue. In January 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a protest to the motion.

As a result of the RAR, in December 2020, System Energy filed amendments to its new Federal Power Act section 205 filings to establish an ongoing rate base credit for the accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the decommissioning uncertain tax position and to credit excess accumulated deferred income taxes arising from the successful portion of the decommissioning uncertain tax position. The amendments both propose the inclusion of the RAR as support for the filings. In December 2020 the LPSC, APSC, and City Council filed a protest in response to the amendments, reiterating their prior objections to the filings. In February 2021 the FERC issued an order accepting System Energy’s Federal Power Act section 205 filings subject to refund, setting them for hearing, and holding the hearing in abeyance.

In December 2020, System Energy filed a new Federal Power Act section 205 filing to provide a one-time, historical credit of $25.2 million for the accumulated deferred income taxes that would have been created by the decommissioning uncertain tax position if the IRS’s decision had been known in 2016. In January 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and City Council filed a protest to the filing.

440

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis

LPSC Authorization of Additional Complaints

In May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC directive notes that the initial decision issued by the presiding ALJ in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback complaint proceeding did not address, for procedural reasons, certain rate issues raised by the LPSC and declined to order further investigation of rates charged by System Energy. The LPSC directive authorizes its staff to file complaints at the FERC “necessary to address these rate issues, to request a full investigation into the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf power, and to seek rate refund, rate reduction, and such other remedies as may be necessary and appropriate to protect Louisiana ratepayers.” The LPSC directive further stated that the LPSC has seen “information suggesting that the Grand Gulf plant has been significantly underperforming compared to other nuclear plants in the United States, has had several extended and unexplained outages, and has been plagued with serious safety concerns.” The LPSC expressed concern that the costs paid by Entergy Louisiana's retail customers may have been detrimentally impacted, and authorized “the filing of a FERC complaint to address these performance issues and to seek appropriate refund, rate reduction, and other remedies as may be appropriate.”

The first of the additional complaints was filed at the FERC by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council in September 2020. The new complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. Several of the filed rate allegations overlap with the previous complaints. The filed rate allegations not previously raised are that System Energy: failed to provide a rate base credit to customers for the “time value” of sale-leaseback lease payments collected from customers in advance of the time those payments were due to the owner-lessors; improperly included certain lease refinancing costs in rate base as prepayments; improperly included nuclear decommissioning outage costs in rate base; failed to include categories of accumulated deferred income taxes as a reduction to rate base; charged customers based on a higher equity ratio than would be appropriate due to excessive retained earnings; and did not correctly reflect money pool investments and imprudently invested cash into the money pool. The elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement that the complaint alleges are unjust and unreasonable include: incentive and executive compensation, lack of an equity re-opener, lobbying, and private airplane travel. The new complaint also requests a rate investigation into the Unit Power Sales Agreement and System Energy’s billing practices pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, including any issue relevant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement and its inputs. System Energy filed its answer opposing the new complaint in November 2020. In its answer, System Energy argued that all of the claims raised in the complaint should be dismissed and agreed that bill adjustment with respect to two discrete issues were justified.System Energy argued that dismissal is warranted because all claims fall into one or more of the following categories: the claims have been raised and are being litigated in another proceeding; the claims do not present a prima facie case and do not satisfy the threshold burden to establish a procedural schedulecomplaint proceeding; the claims are premised on a theory or request relief that is incompatible with federal law or FERC policy; the claims request relief that is inconsistent with the filed rate; the claims are barred or waived by the legal doctrine of laches; and/or the claims have been fully addressed and do not warrant further litigation. In December 2020, System Energy filed a bill adjustment report indicating that $3.4 million had been credited to customers in connection with the two discrete issues concerning the inclusion of certain accumulated deferred income taxes balances in rates.In January 2021 the complainants filed a response to System Energy’s November 2020 answer, and in February 2020, System Energy filed a response to the complainant’s response.

The operational prudence-related complaint has not been filed as of this date, and the LPSC directive did not set a date for hearing proceedings.the filing.


Unit Power Sales Agreement


In August 2017, System Energy submitted to the FERC proposed amendments to the Unit Power Sales
441

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
Agreement pursuant to which System Energy sells its Grand Gulf capacity and energy to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. The filing proposes limited amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement to adopt (1) updated rates for use in calculating Grand Gulf plant depreciation and amortization expenses and (2) updated nuclear decommissioning cost annual revenue requirements, both of which are recovered through the Unit Power Sales Agreement rate formula. The proposed amendments would result in lower charges to the Utility operating companies that buy capacity and energy from System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The proposed changes arewere based on updated depreciation and nuclear decommissioning studies that take into account the renewal of Grand Gulf’s operating license for a term through November 1, 2044. System Energy requested that the FERC accept the amendments effective October 1, 2017.


In September 2017 the FERC accepted System Energy’s proposed Unit Power Sales Agreement amendments, subject to further proceedings to consider the justness and reasonableness of the amendments. Because the amendments propose a rate decrease, the FERC also initiated an investigation under Sectionsection 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine if the rate decrease should be lower than proposed. The FERC accepted the proposed amendments effective October 1, 2017, subject to refund pending the outcome of the further settlement and/or hearing proceedings, and established a refund effective date of October 11, 2017 with respect to the rate decrease. The FERC also consolidated the Unit Power Sales Agreement amendment proceedingIn June 2018, System Energy filed with the proceeding describedFERC an uncontested settlement relating to the updated depreciation rates and nuclear decommissioning cost annual revenue requirements. In August 2018 the FERC issued an order accepting the settlement. In the third quarter 2018, System Energy recorded a reduction in Complaint Against System Energy above,depreciation expense of approximately $26 million, representing the cumulative difference in depreciation expense resulting from the depreciation rates used from October 11, 2017 through September 30, 2018 and directed the parties to engagedepreciation rates included in the settlement proceedings before an ALJ. Iffiling accepted by the parties fail to come to an agreement during settlement proceedings, a prehearing conference will be held to establish a procedural schedule for hearing proceedings.FERC.


Nuclear Matters


System Energy owns and, through an affiliate, operates Grand Gulf.  System Energy is, therefore, subject to the risks related to owning and operating a nuclear plant.  These include risks related to: the use, storage, and handling and disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive materials; the substantial financial requirements, both for capital investments and operational needs, to position Entergy’s nuclear fleetGrand Gulf to meet its operational goals,goals; the performance and capacity factors of Grand Gulf, including the financial requirements to address emerging issues like stress corrosion cracking of certain materials within the plant systems and the Fukushima event;systems; regulatory requirements and potential future regulatory changes, including changes affecting the regulations governing nuclear plant ownership, operations, license renewal and amendments, and decommissioning; the performance and capacity factors of these nuclear plants; the availability of interim or permanent sites for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, including the fees charged for such disposal; the sufficiency of nuclear decommissioning trust fund assets and earnings to complete decommissioning of eachthe site when required; and limitations on the amounts and types of insurance commercially available for losses in connection with nuclear plant operations and catastrophic events such as a nuclear accident. In the event of an unanticipated early shutdown of Grand Gulf, System Energy may be required to provide additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning.  In December 2016, the NRC granted the extension of Grand Gulf’s operating license toexpires in 2044.

In November 2020 the NRC placed Grand Gulf Outagein the “regulatory response column”, or Column 2, of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix based on the incidence of three unplanned plant scrams during the second and NRC review

Grand Gulf beganthird quarters of 2020.Two of the scram events related to new turbine control system components that failed, and a maintenance outage on September 8, 2016third related to replace a residual heat removal pump. Although the pumpfeedwater valve positioner that failed, all of which had been replaced on September 27, 2016 management decidedin a refueling outage that ended in May 2020.The NRC plans to keep the plant in an outage for additional training and other steps to support management’s operational goals.conduct a supplemental inspection of Grand Gulf returnedin accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 2.As a consequence of two additional Grand Gulf scrams during the fourth quarter 2020, System Energy expects Grand Gulf to servicebe placed into the “degraded cornerstone column”, or Column 3, of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix based on Januaryplant performance indicators for the four quarters ended December 31, 2017.2020. This will involve an additional supplemental NRC inspection of Grand Gulf in accordance with its inspection procedures for nuclear plants in Column 3.



426
442

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis



Based on the plant’s performance indicators, in November 2016 the NRC placed Grand Gulf in the “regulatory response column,” or Column 2, of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Entergy is implementing a plan to restore Grand Gulf to Column 1, including addressing the issues related to the three very low safety significance non-cited violations identified in the NRC’s report on the results of its October 2016 special inspection. Depending on the success of implementing that plan and the plant’s performance indicators, there is risk that the NRC could move Grand Gulf into the “degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 3, of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix.

Environmental Risks


System Energy’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters.  Management believes that System Energy is in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted in “Regulation of Entergy’s Business - Environmental Regulation” in Part I, Item 1.  Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance costs cannot be precisely estimated.


Critical Accounting Estimates


The preparation of System Energy’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to apply appropriate accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that can have a significant effect on reported financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.  Management has identified the following accounting policies and estimates as critical because they are based on assumptions and measurements that involve a high degree of uncertainty, and there is the potential for future changes in the assumptions and measurements that could produce estimates that would have a material impact on the presentation of System Energy’s financial position or results of operations.

Nuclear Decommissioning Costs


See “Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates inherent in accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs.

In the second quarter 2017, System Energy recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liability for Grand Gulf as a result of a revised decommissioning cost study. The revised estimate resulted in a $35.9 million reduction in its decommissioning cost liability, along with a corresponding reduction in the related asset retirement cost asset that will be depreciated over the remaining life of the unit.


Utility Regulatory Accounting


See “Utility Regulatory Accounting” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of accounting for the effects of rate regulation.


Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments


See “Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the impairment of long-lived assets and trust fund investments.assets.


427

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions


See “Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.


Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits


System Energy’s qualified pension and other postretirement reported costs, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are impacted by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms.  See the “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.  Because of the complexity of these calculations, the long-term nature of these obligations, and the importance of the assumptions utilized, Entergy’s estimate of these costs is a critical accounting estimate.


443

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
Cost Sensitivity


The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension cost and qualified projected benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Qualified Pension CostImpact on 2020 Projected Qualified Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$727$12,152
Rate of return on plan assets(0.25%)$709$—
Rate of increase in compensation0.25%$464$2,133
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Qualified Pension Cost Impact on 2017 Projected Qualified Benefit Obligation
    Increase/(Decrease)  
Discount rate (0.25%) $820 
$11,922
Rate of return on plan assets (0.25%) $664 
$—
Rate of increase in compensation 0.25% $329 
$1,473


The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).
Actuarial AssumptionChange in AssumptionImpact on 2021 Postretirement Benefit CostImpact on 2020 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
  Increase/(Decrease) 
Discount rate(0.25%)$58$1,635
Health care cost trend0.25%$69$1,202
Actuarial Assumption Change in Assumption Impact on 2018 Postretirement Benefit Cost Impact on 2017 Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
    Increase/(Decrease)  
Discount rate (0.25%) $154 $2,042
Health care cost trend 0.25% $239 $1,704


Each fluctuation above assumes that the other components of the calculation are held constant.


Costs and FundingEmployer Contributions


Total qualified pension cost for System Energy in 20172020 was $11.7 million.$17.3 million, including $105 thousand in settlement costs.  System Energy anticipates 20182021 qualified pension cost to be $14.9 million.  In 2016, System Energy refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of qualified pension costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified pension costs by $2.8$20 million.  System Energy contributed $18.2$16.1 million to its qualified pension plans in 20172020 and estimates 20182021 pension contributions will approximate $13.8$18.7 million, although the 20182021 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, 20182021 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, 2018.2021.


Total postretirement health care and life insurance benefit costincome for System Energy in 20172020 was $692 thousand.$1.5 million. System Energy expects 20182021 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income to approximate $490 thousand.

428

System Energy Resources, Inc.
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis


In 2016, System Energy refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of other postretirement costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified other postretirement costs by $555 thousand.$1.3 million. System Energy contributed $570 thousand$1.3 million to its other postretirement plans in 20172020 and expects 20182021 contributions to approximate $16$22 thousand.


Federal Healthcare LegislationOther Contingencies


See “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits -Federal Healthcare LegislationContingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of Federal Healthcare Legislation.

Other Contingencies

See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.


New Accounting Pronouncements


See “New Accounting Pronouncements” section of Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.





444

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




To the shareholder and Board of Directors of
System Energy Resources, Inc.


Opinion on the Financial Statements


We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of System Energy Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, the related statements of income, cash flows, and changes in common equity (pages 431447 through 436452 and applicable items in pages 5551 through 230)238), for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


Basis for Opinion


These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.


We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.


Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



Critical Audit Matter

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that is material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing separate opinion on the critical audit matters or on the accounts or disclosures to which they relate.

Rate and Regulatory Matters —System Energy Resources, Inc. — Refer to Notes 2 to the financial statements

Critical Audit Matter Description

The Company is subject to wholesale rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Management has determined it meets the requirements under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America to prepare its financial statements applying the specialized rules to account for the effects of cost-based rate regulation. Accounting for the economics of rate regulation impacts multiple financial statement line items and disclosures, such as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets and liabilities; operating revenues; operation and maintenance expense; income taxes; and depreciation and amortization expense.
445


The Company’s rates are subject to regulatory rate-setting processes and annual earnings oversight. Because the FERC sets the rates the Company is allowed to charge customers based on allowable costs, including a reasonable return on equity, the Company applies accounting standards that require the financial statements to reflect the effects of rate regulation, including the recording of regulatory assets and liabilities. The Company assesses whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in applicable regulatory and political environments. While the Company has indicated it expects to recover costs from customers through regulated rates, there is a risk that the FERC will not approve: (1) full recovery of the costs of providing utility service, or (2) full recovery of amounts invested in the utility business and a reasonable return on that investment.

We identified the impact of rate regulation as a critical audit matter due to the significant judgments made by management to support its assertions about impacted account balances and disclosures and the high degree of subjectivity involved in assessing the impact of future regulatory orders on the financial statements. Management judgments include assessing the (1) likelihood of recovery in future rates of incurred costs, (2) likelihood of refunds to customers, and (3) ongoing complaints filed with the FERC against the Company. Auditing management’s judgments regarding the outcome of future decisions by the FERC, involved especially subjective judgment and specialized knowledge of accounting for rate regulation and the rate setting process.

How the Critical Audit Matter Was Addressed in the Audit

Our audit procedures related to the uncertainty of future decisions by the FERC included the following, among others:

We tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the evaluation of the likelihood of (1) the recovery in future rates of costs incurred as property, plant, and equipment and deferred as regulatory assets, and (2) a refund or a future reduction in rates that should be reported as regulatory liabilities. We also tested the effectiveness of management’s controls over the initial recognition of amounts as property, plant, and equipment; regulatory assets or liabilities; and the monitoring and evaluation of regulatory developments that may affect the likelihood of recovering costs in future rates or of a future reduction in rates.
We evaluated the Company’s disclosures related to the impacts of rate regulation, including the balances recorded and regulatory developments.
We read relevant regulatory orders issued by the FERC for the Company and other public utilities, regulatory statutes, interpretations, procedural memorandums, filings made by intervenors, and other publicly available information to assess the likelihood of recovery in future rates or of a future reduction in rates based on precedents of the FERC’s treatment of similar costs under similar circumstances. We evaluated the external information and compared to management’s recorded regulatory asset and liability balances for completeness.
For regulatory matters in process, we inspected the Company’s filings and ongoing complaints filed with the FERC, including the Return on Equity, Capital Structure, and Grand Gulf Sale-Leaseback Renewal complaints, and considered the filings with the FERC by intervenors that may impact the Company’s future rates, for any evidence that might contradict management’s assertions.
We obtained an analysis from management and support from internal and external legal counsel, as appropriate, regarding probability of recovery for regulatory assets or refund or future reduction in rates for regulatory liabilities not yet addressed in a regulatory order, including the complaints filed with the FERC against the Company, to assess management’s assertion that amounts are probable of recovery or a future reduction in rates.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 20182021



We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2001.



446
SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
INCOME STATEMENTS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
       
OPERATING REVENUES      
Electric 
$633,458
 
$548,291
 
$632,405
       
OPERATING EXPENSES  
  
  
Operation and Maintenance:  
  
  
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale 71,700
 27,416
 89,598
Nuclear refueling outage expenses 17,968
 19,512
 21,654
Other operation and maintenance 213,534
 153,064
 156,552
Decommissioning 43,347
 50,797
 47,993
Taxes other than income taxes 26,180
 25,195
 27,281
Depreciation and amortization 137,767
 136,195
 143,133
Other regulatory credits - net (37,831) (45,041) (39,434)
TOTAL 472,665
 367,138
 446,777
       
OPERATING INCOME 160,793
 181,153
 185,628
       
OTHER INCOME  
  
  
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 6,345
 7,944
 8,494
Interest and investment income 17,538
 14,793
 14,437
Miscellaneous - net (521) (556) (876)
TOTAL 23,362
 22,181
 22,055
       
INTEREST EXPENSE  
  
  
Interest expense 37,141
 37,529
 45,532
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction (1,551) (2,000) (2,244)
TOTAL 35,590
 35,529
 43,288
       
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES 148,565
 167,805
 164,395
       
Income taxes 69,969
 71,061
 53,077
       
NET INCOME 
$78,596
 
$96,744
 
$111,318
       
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  



SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
INCOME STATEMENTS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING REVENUES   
Electric$495,458 $573,410 $456,707 
OPERATING EXPENSES   
Operation and Maintenance:   
Fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale23,026 82,438 64,778 
Nuclear refueling outage expenses27,737 33,376 20,715 
Other operation and maintenance178,249 206,444 196,505 
Decommissioning37,181 35,729 34,336 
Taxes other than income taxes28,657 29,018 28,090 
Depreciation and amortization110,395 106,630 97,527 
Other regulatory credits - net(26,531)(35,210)(28,924)
TOTAL378,714 458,425 413,027 
OPERATING INCOME116,744 114,985 43,680 
OTHER INCOME   
Allowance for equity funds used during construction9,122 8,709 8,750 
Interest and investment income36,478 29,488 35,985 
Miscellaneous - net(10,012)(5,516)(5,775)
TOTAL35,588 32,681 38,960 
INTEREST EXPENSE   
Interest expense34,467 35,328 38,424 
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction(1,809)(2,131)(2,218)
TOTAL32,658 33,197 36,206 
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES119,674 114,469 46,434 
Income taxes20,543 15,349 (47,675)
NET INCOME$99,131 $99,120 $94,109 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   


447

























(Page left blank intentionally)

448


SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 202020192018
 (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES   
Net income$99,131 $99,120 $94,109 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by (used in) operating activities:
Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning, including nuclear fuel amortization184,429 212,170 186,719 
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued(455,732)95 24,040 
Changes in assets and liabilities:   
Receivables13,932 (23,382)18,169 
Accounts payable(11,587)18,204 (7,067)
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued69,145 19,247 (51,999)
Interest accrued729 (1,302)(94)
Other working capital accounts(34,158)15,879 (45,415)
Other regulatory assets(48,880)(43,712)(2,044)
Other regulatory liabilities140,965 130,949 (156,802)
Pension and other postretirement liabilities15,596 11,177 (23,235)
Other assets and liabilities(119,032)(138,304)64,947 
Net cash flow provided by (used in) operating activities(145,462)300,141 101,328 
INVESTING ACTIVITIES   
Construction expenditures(193,857)(166,695)(194,696)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction9,122 8,709 8,750 
Nuclear fuel purchases(94,991)(18,170)(125,272)
Proceeds from the sale of nuclear fuel25,836 26,223 30,634 
Proceeds from nuclear decommissioning trust fund sales418,943 500,384 573,561 
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust funds(432,249)(517,828)(583,683)
Changes in money pool receivable - net55,294 47,824 4,545 
Litigation proceeds for reimbursement of spent nuclear fuel storage costs5,459 
Net cash flow used in investing activities(206,443)(119,553)(286,161)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES   
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt1,147,903 1,103,917 741,785 
Retirement of long-term debt(891,410)(1,187,406)(662,904)
Capital contribution from parent350,000 
Changes in short-term credit borrowings - net(17,830)
Common stock dividends and distributions(80,653)(124,250)(67,720)
Net cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities525,840 (207,739)(6,669)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents173,935 (27,151)(191,502)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period68,534 95,685 287,187 
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period$242,469 $68,534 $95,685 
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:   
Cash paid during the period for:   
Interest - net of amount capitalized$35,061 $21,052 $17,183 
Income taxes$384,329 $2,284 $53,956 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

449
SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
   
  For the Years Ended December 31,
  2017 2016 2015
  (In Thousands)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES      
Net income 
$78,596
 
$96,744
 
$111,318
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating activities:      
Depreciation, amortization, and decommissioning, including nuclear fuel amortization 240,962
 224,879
 270,514
Deferred income taxes, investment tax credits, and non-current taxes accrued 7,827
 99,531
 200,797
Changes in assets and liabilities:  
  
  
Receivables 9,210
 (15,846) 5,879
Accounts payable 15,969
 2,720
 (352)
Prepaid taxes and taxes accrued 62,466
 (6,555) (32,594)
Interest accrued (660) (134) (19,013)
Other working capital accounts 12,083
 (15,470) 13,576
Other regulatory assets 60,012
 (58,279) (4,565)
Other regulatory liabilities 331,251
 33,438
 (33,686)
Deferred tax rate change recognized as regulatory liability/asset (325,707) 
 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities 4,024
 5,586
 (16,888)
Other assets and liabilities (124,755) (24,675) 7,550
Net cash flow provided by operating activities 371,278
 341,939
 502,536
INVESTING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Construction expenditures (91,705) (88,037) (70,358)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction 6,345
 7,944
 8,494
Nuclear fuel purchases (49,728) (151,068) (64,977)
Proceeds from the sale of nuclear fuel 69,516
 11,467
 57,681
Proceeds from nuclear decommissioning trust fund sales 565,416
 499,252
 390,371
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust funds (596,236) (534,083) (421,220)
Changes in money pool receivable - net (77,858) 6,117
 (37,553)
Litigation proceeds for reimbursement of spent nuclear fuel storage costs 
 15,806
 
Net cash flow used in investing activities (174,250) (232,602) (137,562)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES  
  
  
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt 150,100
 
 
Retirement of long-term debt (150,103) (22,002) (136,310)
Changes in credit borrowings - net (49,063) 66,893
 (20,404)
Common stock dividends and distributions (106,610) (139,000) (200,750)
Other (28) (26) (28)
Net cash flow used in financing activities (155,704) (94,135) (357,492)
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 41,324
 15,202
 7,482
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 245,863
 230,661
 223,179
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period 
$287,187
 
$245,863
 
$230,661
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:  
  
  
Cash paid (received) during the period for:  
  
  
Interest - net of amount capitalized 
$26,251
 
$36,152
 
$47,864
Income taxes 
($2,227) 
($23,565) 
($114,092)
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
  



SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT ASSETS  
Cash and cash equivalents:  
Cash$26,086 $93 
Temporary cash investments216,383 68,441 
Total cash and cash equivalents242,469 68,534 
Accounts receivable:  
Associated companies57,743 121,972 
Other2,550 7,547 
Total accounts receivable60,293 129,519 
Materials and supplies - at average cost123,006 108,766 
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs34,459 14,493 
Prepayments and other6,864 6,045 
TOTAL467,091 327,357 
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
Decommissioning trust funds1,215,868 1,054,098 
TOTAL1,215,868 1,054,098 
UTILITY PLANT  
Electric5,309,458 5,070,859 
Construction work in progress59,831 164,996 
Nuclear fuel175,005 149,574 
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT5,544,294 5,385,429 
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization3,355,367 3,285,487 
UTILITY PLANT - NET2,188,927 2,099,942 
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
Regulatory assets:  
Other regulatory assets538,963 490,083 
Accumulated deferred income tax8,023 
Other3,119 3,192 
TOTAL542,082 501,298 
TOTAL ASSETS$4,413,968 $3,982,695 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  

450

SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
   
  December 31,
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
     
CURRENT ASSETS    
Cash and cash equivalents:    
Cash 
$78
 
$786
Temporary cash investments 287,109
 245,077
Total cash and cash equivalents 287,187
 245,863
Accounts receivable:  
  
Associated companies 170,149
 104,390
Other 6,526
 3,637
Total accounts receivable 176,675
 108,027
Materials and supplies - at average cost 88,424
 82,469
Deferred nuclear refueling outage costs 7,908
 24,729
Prepayments and other 2,489
 20,111
TOTAL 562,683
 481,199
     
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS  
  
Decommissioning trust funds 905,686
 780,496
TOTAL 905,686
 780,496
     
UTILITY PLANT  
  
Electric 4,327,849
 4,331,668
Property under capital lease 588,281
 585,084
Construction work in progress 69,937
 43,888
Nuclear fuel 207,513
 259,635
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT 5,193,580
 5,220,275
Less - accumulated depreciation and amortization 3,175,018
 3,063,249
UTILITY PLANT - NET 2,018,562
 2,157,026
     
DEFERRED DEBITS AND OTHER ASSETS  
  
Regulatory assets:  
  
Regulatory asset for income taxes - net 
 93,127
Other regulatory assets 444,327
 411,212
Other 7,629
 4,652
TOTAL 451,956
 508,991
     
TOTAL ASSETS 
$3,938,887
 
$3,927,712
     
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  
SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
 December 31,
 20202019
 (In Thousands)
CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Currently maturing long-term debt$100,015 $10 
Accounts payable:  
Associated companies15,309 14,619 
Other41,313 64,144 
Taxes accrued82,977 13,832 
Interest accrued12,722 11,993 
Other4,248 3,381 
TOTAL256,584 107,979 
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued359,835 821,963 
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits38,902 40,181 
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net151,829 142,845 
Other regulatory liabilities665,396 533,415 
Decommissioning968,910 931,729 
Pension and other postretirement liabilities125,412 109,816 
Long-term debt705,259 548,097 
Other61,295 34,602 
TOTAL3,076,838 3,162,648 
Commitments and Contingencies00
COMMON EQUITY  
Common stock, no par value, authorized 1,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding 789,350 shares in 2020 and 2019951,850 601,850 
Retained earnings128,696 110,218 
TOTAL1,080,546 712,068 
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY$4,413,968 $3,982,695 
See Notes to Financial Statements.  


451
SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
   
  December 31,
  2017 2016
  (In Thousands)
     
CURRENT LIABILITIES    
Currently maturing long-term debt 
$85,004
 
$50,003
Short-term borrowings 17,830
 66,893
Accounts payable:  
  
Associated companies 16,878
 5,843
Other 62,868
 50,558
Taxes accrued 46,584
 
Interest accrued 13,389
 14,049
Other 2,434
 2,957
TOTAL 244,987
 190,303
     
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES  
  
Accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued 776,420
 1,112,865
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits 39,406
 41,663
Regulatory liability for income taxes - net 246,122
 
Other regulatory liabilities 455,991
 370,862
Decommissioning 861,664
 854,202
Pension and other postretirement liabilities 121,874
 117,850
Long-term debt 466,484
 501,129
Other 15,130
 15
TOTAL 2,983,091
 2,998,586
     
Commitments and Contingencies 

 

     
COMMON EQUITY  
  
Common stock, no par value, authorized 1,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding 789,350 shares in 2017 and 2016 658,350
 679,350
Retained earnings 52,459
 59,473
TOTAL 710,809
 738,823
     
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 
$3,938,887
 
$3,927,712
     
See Notes to Financial Statements.  
  




SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
 Common Equity 
 Common StockRetained EarningsTotal
 (In Thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2017$658,350 $52,459 $710,809 
Net income94,109 94,109 
Common stock dividends and distributions(56,500)(11,220)(67,720)
Balance at December 31, 2018$601,850 $135,348 $737,198 
Net income99,120 99,120 
Common stock dividends and distributions(124,250)(124,250)
Balance at December 31, 2019$601,850 $110,218 $712,068 
Net income99,131 99,131 
Capital contribution from parent350,000 350,000 
Common stock dividends and distributions(80,653)(80,653)
Balance at December 31, 2020$951,850 $128,696 $1,080,546 
See Notes to Financial Statements.   

452
SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON EQUITY
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
    
 Common Equity  
 Common Stock Retained Earnings Total
 (In Thousands)
      
Balance at December 31, 2014
$789,350
 
$81,161
 
$870,511
Net income
 111,318
 111,318
Common stock dividends and distributions(70,000) (130,750) (200,750)
Balance at December 31, 2015
$719,350
 
$61,729
 
$781,079
Net income
 96,744
 96,744
Common stock dividends and distributions(40,000) (99,000) (139,000)
Balance at December 31, 2016
$679,350
 
$59,473
 
$738,823
Net income
 78,596
 78,596
Common stock dividends and distributions(21,000) (85,610) (106,610)
Balance at December 31, 2017
$658,350
 
$52,459
 
$710,809
      
See Notes to Financial Statements. 
  
  




SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
 20202019201820172016
 (Dollars In Thousands)
Operating revenues$495,458 $573,410 $456,707 $633,458 $548,291 
Net income$99,131 $99,120 $94,109 $78,596 $96,744 
Total assets$4,413,968 $3,982,695 $3,848,814 $3,938,887 $3,927,712 
Long-term obligations (a)$705,259 $548,097 $630,744 $466,484 $501,129 
Electric energy sales (GWh)5,849 9,940 6,264 6,675 5,384 
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt).

453
SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
          
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (Dollars In Thousands)
          
Operating revenues
$633,458
 
$548,291
 
$632,405
 
$664,364
 
$735,089
Net income
$78,596
 
$96,744
 
$111,318
 
$96,334
 
$113,664
Total assets
$3,938,887
 
$3,927,712
 
$3,728,875
 
$3,826,193
 
$3,537,414
Long-term obligations (a)
$466,484
 
$501,129
 
$572,665
 
$630,603
 
$702,273
Electric energy sales (GWh)6,675
 5,384
 10,547
 9,219
 9,794
          
(a) Includes long-term debt (excluding currently maturing debt).



Item 2.   Properties


Information regarding the registrant’s properties is included in Part I. Item 1. - Entergy’s Business under the sections titled “Utility- Property and Other Generation Resources” and “Entergy Wholesale Commodities- Property” in this report.


Item 3.   Legal Proceedings


Details of the registrant’s material environmental regulation and proceedings and other regulatory proceedings and litigation that are pending or those terminated in the fourth quarter of 20172020 are discussed in Part I. Item 1. - Entergy’s Business under the sections titled “Retail Rate Regulation,” “Environmental Regulation,” and “Litigation” and “Impairment of Long-lived Assets” in Note 14to the financial statements.


Item 4.   Mine Safety Disclosures


Not applicable.


INFORMATION ABOUT EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF ENTERGY CORPORATION


Executive Officers
NameAgePositionPeriod
Leo P. Denault (a)5861Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Corporation2013-Present
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Entergy Corporation2004-2013
Director of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and System Energy2004-2013
Director of Entergy Texas2007-2013
Director of Entergy New Orleans2011-2013
A. Christopher Bakken, III (a)5659Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy2016-Present
Project Director, Hinkley Point C of EDF Energy2009-2016
Marcus V. Brown (a)5659Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy2013-Present
Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy2012-2013
Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Entergy Services, Inc.2009-2012
Associate General Counsel of Entergy Services, Inc.2007-2009

NameAgePositionPeriod
Andrew S. Marsh (a)4649Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Entergy Corporation2013-Present
  Director of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy2013-Present
Chief Financial Officer of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy2014-Present

454


Vice President, System Planning of Entergy Services, Inc.2010-2013
NameAgeVice President, Planning and Financial Communications of Entergy Services, Inc.Position2007-2010
Period
Roderick K. West (a)4952Group President Utility Operations of Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas2017-Present
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of System Energy2017-Present
Executive Vice PresidentDirector of Entergy CorporationArkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy2010-20172017-Present
Chief Administrative Officer of Entergy Corporation2010-2016
President and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy New Orleans2007-20102018
DirectorExecutive Vice President of Entergy New OrleansCorporation2005-20112010-2017
Chief Administrative Officer of Entergy Corporation2010-2016
Paul D. Hinnenkamp (a)5659Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Entergy Corporation2017-Present
 Director of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas2015-Present
Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Entergy Corporation2015-2017
Senior Vice President, Capital Project Management and Technology of Entergy Services, Inc.2015
Kathryn A. Collins57Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, Entergy Corporation2020-Present
Chief Human Resources Officer, Arcosa, Inc.2018-2020
Vice President, Human Resources, Trinity, Inc.2014-2018
Julie E. Harbert (a)47Senior Vice President, Corporate Business Services of Entergy Corporation2019-Present
Vice President, Capital Project Management and TechnologyShared Services of Entergy Services, Inc.2013-20152017-2019
Senior Vice President, Global Business Services of Fossil Generation Development and Support of Entergy Services, Inc.Philips Health Tech2010-20132015-2017
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan (a)47Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy2012-Present2019-Present
Vice President, Corporate ControllerSystem Planning of Entergy Services, Inc.2010-20122017-2019
Director, Corporate Reporting and Accounting PolicyVice President, Regulatory Services of Entergy Services, Inc.2002-2010
Andrea Coughlin Rowley (a)52Senior Vice President, Human Resources of Entergy Corporation2016-Present
President and Chief Executive Officer of Advance/Evolve LLC2013-2016
Vice President, Human Resources of Dover Corporation2012-2013

2015-2017
NameAgePositionPeriod
Donald W. VinciPeter S. Norgeot, Jr. (a)5955ExecutiveSenior Vice President, and Chief Administrative OfficerTransformation of Entergy Corporation2016-Present2018-Present
Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Chief Diversity OfficerPower Generation of Entergy CorporationServices2013-20162017-2018
Vice President, Human Capital ManagementFossil Generation of Entergy Services Inc.20132015-2017
Vice President, Gas Distribution Business of Entergy Services, Inc.2010-2013
Vice President, Business Development of Entergy Services, Inc.2008-2010

(a)In addition, this officer is an executive officer and/or director of various other wholly owned subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation and its operating companies.
(a)In addition, this officer is an executive officer and/or director of various other wholly owned subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation and its operating companies.


Each officer of Entergy Corporation is elected yearly by the Board of Directors. Each officer’s age and title isare provided as of December 31, 2017.2020.

455

PART II


Item 5.  Market for Registrants’ Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters

Entergy Corporation


The shares of Entergy Corporation’s common stock are listed on the New York Stock and Chicago Stock Exchanges under the ticker symbol ETR.

The high and low prices of Entergy Corporation’s common stock for each quarterly period in 2017 and 2016 were as follows:
 2017 2016
 High Low High Low
 (In Dollars)
First77.51 69.63 79.72 65.38
Second80.61 74.88 81.36 72.67
Third80.49 74.83 82.09 75.99
Fourth87.95 75.01 76.56 66.71

Consecutive quarterly cash dividends on common stock were paid to stockholders of Entergy Corporation in 2017 and 2016.  Quarterly dividends of $0.85 per share were paid through third quarter 2016. In fourth quarter 2016 and through third quarter 2017, dividends of $0.87 per share were paid. In fourth quarter 2017, dividends of $0.89 per share were paid.
As of January 31, 2018,2021, there were 26,21322,817 stockholders of record of Entergy Corporation.



Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds


Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities (1)
PeriodTotal Number of Shares PurchasedAverage Price Paid per ShareTotal Number of Shares Purchased as Part of a Publicly Announced PlanMaximum $ Amount of Shares that May Yet be Purchased Under a Plan (2)
10/01/20172020 - 10/31/2020-10/31/2017— 
$— 
$—
— 

$350,052,918 

$350,052,918
11/01/20172020 - 11/30/2020-11/30/2017— 
$— 
$—
— 

$350,052,918 

$350,052,918
12/01/20172020 - 12/31/2020-12/31/2017— 
$— 
$—
— 

$350,052,918 

$350,052,918
Total

$— 
$—
— 


In accordance with Entergy’s stock-based compensation plans, Entergy periodically grants stock options to key employees, which may be exercised to obtain shares of Entergy’s common stock.  According to the plans, these shares can be newly issued shares, treasury stock, or shares purchased on the open market.  Entergy’s management has been authorized by the Board to repurchase on the open market shares up to an amount sufficient to fund the exercise of grants under the plans.  In addition to this authority, the Board has authorized share repurchase programs to enable opportunistic purchases in response to market conditions. In October 2010 the Board granted authority for a $500 million share repurchase program. The amount of share repurchases under these programs may vary as a result of material changes in business results or capital spending or new investment opportunities.  In addition, in the first quarter 2017,2020, Entergy withheld 1,054151,159 shares of its common stock at $70.58$126.31 per share, 122,14879,153 shares of its common stock at $70.61$129.55 per share, and 31,24341,167 shares of its common stock at $71.89$131.52 per share, 2,269 shares of its common stock at $124.28 per share, 1,331 shares of its common stock at $123.74 per share, 1,088 shares of its common stock at $102.93 per share, 441 shares of its common stock at $132.19 per share, 71 shares of its common stock at $86.51 per share, 31 shares of its common stock at $115.90 per share, and 19 shares of its common stock at $86.74 per share to pay income taxes due upon vesting of restricted stock granted and payout of performance units as part of its long-term incentive program.


(1)See Note 12 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the stock-based compensation plans.
(2)Maximum amount of shares that may yet be repurchased relates only to the $500 million plan does not include an estimate of the amount of shares that may be purchased to fund the exercise of grants under the stock-based compensation plans.

(1)See Note 12 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the stock-based compensation plans.
(2)Maximum amount of shares that may yet be repurchased relates only to the $500 million plan does not include an estimate of the amount of shares that may be purchased to fund the exercise of grants under the stock-based compensation plans.

Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy


There is no market for the common equity of the Registrant Subsidiaries. Cash dividends and distributions on common equity paid by the Registrant Subsidiaries during 2017 and 2016, were as follows:

 2017 2016
 (In Millions)
Entergy Arkansas
$15.0
 
$—
Entergy Louisiana
$91.3
 
$285.5
Entergy Mississippi
$26.0
 
$24.0
Entergy New Orleans
$74.3
 
$18.7
Entergy Texas
$—
 
$—
System Energy
$106.6
 
$139.0

Information with respect to restrictions that limit the ability of the Registrant Subsidiaries to pay dividends or distributions is presented in Note 7 to the financial statements.


456



Item 6.    Selected Financial Data


Refer to “SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON OF ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES, ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES, ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.,LLC, ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES, ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES, and SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.” which follow each company’s financial statements in this report, for information with respect to selected financial data and certain operating statistics.


Item 7.   Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations


Refer to “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES, ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES, ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.,LLC, ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES, ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES, and SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.”


Item 7A.   Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk


Refer to “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES-Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments.”


Item 8.  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data


Refer to “TABLE OF CONTENTS - Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.,LLC and Subsidiaries, Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries, Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,LLC, Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries, Entergy Texas, Inc., and Subsidiaries, and System Energy Resources, Inc.”


Item 9.  Changes In and Disagreements With Accountants On Accounting and Financial Disclosure


No event that would be described in response to this item has occurred with respect to Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, or System Energy.


Item 9A.  Controls and Procedures


Disclosure Controls and Procedures


As of December 31, 2017,2020, evaluations were performed under the supervision and with the participation of Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy (individually “Registrant” and collectively the “Registrants”) management, including their respective Principal Executive Officers (PEO) and Principal Financial Officers (PFO).  The evaluations assessed the effectiveness of the Registrants’ disclosure controls and procedures.  Based on the evaluations, each PEO and PFO has concluded that, as to the Registrant or Registrants for which they serve as PEO or PFO, the Registrant’s or Registrants’ disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by each Registrant in reports that it files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms; and that the Registrant’s or Registrants’ disclosure controls and procedures are also effective in reasonably assuring that such information is accumulated and communicated to the Registrant’s or Registrants’ management, including their respective PEOs and PFOs, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.



457

Internal Control over Financial Reporting

(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


The managements of Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy (individually “Registrant” and collectively the “Registrants”) are responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting for the Registrants.  Each Registrant’s internal control system is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the preparation and fair presentation of each Registrant’s financial statements presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.


All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations.  Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.


Each Registrant’s management assessed the effectiveness of each Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017.2020.  In making this assessment, each Registrant’s management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control - Integrated Framework. The 2013 COSO Framework was utilized for management’s assessment.


Based on each management’s assessment and the criteria set forth by the 2013 COSO Framework, each Registrant’s management believes that each Registrant maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017.2020.


The report of Deloitte & Touche LLP, Entergy Corporation’s independent registered public accounting firm, regarding Entergy Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting is included herein. The report of Deloitte & Touche LLP is not applicable to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy because these Registrants are non-accelerated filers.


Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting


Under the supervision and with the participation of each Registrant’s management, including its respective PEO and PFO, each Registrant evaluated changes in internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 20172020 and found no change that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, internal control over financial reporting.

458

Attestation Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the shareholders and Board of Directors of
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries


Opinion on Internal Control over Financial Reporting


We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Corporation”) as of December 31, 2017,2020, based on criteria established in Internal Control -Integrated—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). In our opinion, the Corporation maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017,2020, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO.


We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 20172020 of the Corporation and our report dated February 26, 20182021 expressed an unqualified opinion ofon those consolidated financial statements.


Basis for Opinion


The Corporation’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in Item 9A, Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Corporation in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.


We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.


Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting


A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.


Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 20182021

459

PART III


Item 10.  Directors, and Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance of the Registrants (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas)


Information required by this item concerning directors of Entergy Corporation is set forth under the heading “Item“Proposal 1 – Election of Directors” contained in the Proxy Statement of Entergy Corporation, to be filed in connection with its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held May 4, 2018,7, 2021, and is incorporated herein by reference.


All officers and directors listed below held the specified positions with their respective companies as of the date of filing this report, unless otherwise noted.
NameAgePositionPeriod
Entergy Arkansas, LLC
NameDirectorsAgePositionPeriod
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
Laura R. Landreaux47
Directors
Richard C. Riley55President and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Arkansas2016-Present2018-Present
Director of Entergy Arkansas2016-Present2018-Present
Group Vice President, Customer Service and OperationsOperational Finance Director of Entergy Arkansas2015-20162017-2018
Vice President, TransmissionRegulatory Affairs of Entergy Services, Inc.Arkansas2010-20152014-2017
Paul D. Hinnenkamp See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Andrew S. Marsh See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Roderick K. West See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Officers
A. Christopher Bakken, IIISee information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Marcus V. BrownSee information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Leo P. Denault

See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Paul D. HinnenkampSee information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Andrew S. MarshLaura R. LandreauxSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Alyson M. MountSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Richard C. RileySee information under the Entergy Arkansas Directors Section above.
Andrea Coughlin RowleyAndrew S. Marsh

See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Donald W. VinciKimberly A. Fontan

See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Roderick K. West

See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.


460

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
Directors
Phillip R. May, Jr.58President and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Louisiana2013-Present
Director of Entergy Louisiana2013-Present
ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLCPaul D. Hinnenkamp
Directors See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I.
Andrew S. Marsh See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I. 
Roderick K. WestSee information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I.
Officers
A. Christopher Bakken, IIISee information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I.
Marcus V. BrownSee information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I.
Leo P. DenaultSee information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I.
Paul D. HinnenkampSee information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I.
Andrew S. MarshSee information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I. 
Phillip R. May, Jr.55 President and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Louisiana2013-Present
Director of Entergy Louisiana2013-Present
Vice President, Regulatory Services of Entergy Services, Inc.2002-2013
Paul D. HinnenkampSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Andrew S. MarshSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Roderick K. WestSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Officers
A. Christopher Bakken, IIISee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Marcus V. BrownSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Leo P. DenaultSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Paul D. HinnenkampSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Andrew S. MarshSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Phillip R. May, Jr.See information under the Entergy Louisiana Directors Section above. 
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Andrea Coughlin RowleySee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Donald W. VinciSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Roderick K. West See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 


ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC
Directors
Haley R. Fisackerly55President and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Mississippi2008-Present
Director of Entergy Mississippi2008-Present
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
Directors
Haley R. Fisackerly52President and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Mississippi2008-Present
Director of Entergy Mississippi2008-Present
Paul D. Hinnenkamp See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Andrew S. Marsh See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Roderick K. West See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.


461

Officers
Marcus V. Brown See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Leo P. Denault See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Haley R. Fisackerly See information under the Entergy Mississippi Directors Section above. 
Paul D. Hinnenkamp See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Andrew S. Marsh See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Andrea Coughlin RowleySee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Donald W. VinciSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Roderick K. West See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 


ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC
Directors
Charles L. Rice, Jr.David D. Ellis5352President and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy New Orleans2010-Present2018-Present
Director of Entergy New Orleans2010-Present2018-Present
President and Chief Executive Officer, Global Power Technologies2018
Managing Director Utility Strategyand Chairman of Entergy Services,Comverge International, Inc.2009-2010
Partner, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC2005-2009
Paul D. HinnenkampSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Andrew S. MarshSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Roderick K. WestSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.

2010-2017
OfficersPaul D. Hinnenkamp See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I.
Andrew S. MarshSee information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I.
Roderick K. West See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I. 

Officers
Marcus V. Brown See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Leo P. Denault See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
PaulDavid D. HinnenkampEllisSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Andrew S. MarshSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Alyson M. MountSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Charles L. Rice, Jr.See information under the Entergy New Orleans Directors Section above.
Andrea Coughlin RowleyPaul D. Hinnenkamp See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Donald W. VinciAndrew S. Marsh See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Kimberly A. FontanSee information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation in Part I. 
Roderick K. West See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 

462

ENTERGY TEXAS, INC.
Directors
Sallie T. Rainer58President and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Texas2012-Present
Director of Entergy Texas2012-Present
ENTERGY TEXAS, INC.
Directors
Sallie T. Rainer56President and Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Texas2012-Present
Director of Entergy Texas2012-Present
Vice President, Federal Policy of Entergy Services, Inc.2011-2012
Director, Regulatory Affairs and Energy Settlements of Entergy Services, Inc.2006-2011
Paul D. Hinnenkamp See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Andrew S. Marsh See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Roderick K. West See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 


Officers
Marcus V. Brown See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Leo P. Denault See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Paul D. Hinnenkamp See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Andrew S. Marsh See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Sallie T. Rainer See information under the Entergy Texas Directors Section above.
Andrea Coughlin RowleySee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I.
Donald W. VinciSee information under the Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 
Roderick K. West See information under the Information about Executive Officers of Entergy Corporation Officers Section in Part I. 


Each directorThe directors and officerofficers of the applicable Entergy company isTexas are elected yearlyannually to serve by the unanimous consent of theits sole common stockholder with the exception of thestockholder. The directors and officers of Entergy Arkansas, LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, LLC and Entergy New Orleans, LLC who are elected yearlyannually to serve by the unanimous consent of the sole common membership owner, Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC. Entergy Corporation’s directors are elected annually at the annual meeting of shareholders.  Entergy Corporation’s officers are elected at the annual organizational meeting of the Board of Directors.Directors, which immediately follows the annual meeting of shareholders. The age of each officer and director for whom information is presented above is as of December 31, 2020.


Corporate Governance Guidelines and Committee Charters


Each of the Audit, Corporate Governance, and Personnel Committees of Entergy Corporation’s Board of Directors operates under a written charter.  In addition, the full Board has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines.  Each charter and the guidelines are available through Entergy’s website (www.entergy.com) or upon written request.


Audit Committee of the Entergy Corporation Board


The following directors are members of the Audit Committee of Entergy Corporation’s Board of Directors:


Patrick J. Condon (Chairman)
Maureen S. Bateman
Philip L. Frederickson
Blanche L. LincolnM. Elise Hyland
Karen A. Puckett

463


All Audit Committee members are independent.  In addition to the general independence requirements of the NYSE, all Audit Committee members must meet the heightened independence standards imposed by the SEC and NYSE.  All Audit Committee members possess the level of financial literacy and accounting or related financial management expertise required by the NYSE rules.  Therules and  the Board has determined that each of Patrick J.Messrs. Condon and Philip L. Frederickson issatisfy the financial expertise requirements of the NYSE and have the requisite experience to be designated an “auditaudit committee financial expert”expert as suchthat term is defined by the rules of the SEC.



Code of Ethics


TheEffective October 2018, the Entergy Corporation Board of Directors has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for Membersthat applies to members of the Entergy Corporation Board of Directors.Directors and all Entergy officers and employees. The code is available through Entergy’s website (www.entergy.com) or upon written request.  The Board has also adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for Employees that includes Special Provisions Relating to Principal Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers.  The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for EmployeesIt is to be read in conjunction with Entergy’s omnibus code of integrity under which Entergy operates, called the Code of Entegrity, as well as system policies.  All employees are expected to abide by the Codes.  Non-bargaining employees are required to acknowledge annually that they understand and abide by the Code of Entegrity.  The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, for Employees, including any amendments or any waivers thereto, and the Code of Entegrity are available through Entergy’s website (www.entergy.com) or upon written request.


Source of Nominations to the Entergy Corporation Board of Directors; Nominating Procedure


The Corporate Governance Committee will consider candidates identified by current directors, management, third-party search firms engaged by the Corporate Governance Committee and Entergy Corporation’s shareholders. Shareholders wishing to recommend a candidate to the Corporate Governance Committee should do so by submitting the recommendation in writing to Entergy Corporation’s Secretary at 639 Loyola Avenue, P.O. Box 61000, New Orleans, LA 70161, and it will be forwarded to the Corporate Governance Committee members for their consideration. Any recommendation should include:


the number of shares of Entergy Corporation stock held by the shareholder;
the name and address of the candidate;
a brief biographical description of the candidate, including his or her occupation for at least the last five years, and a statement of the qualifications of the candidate, taking into account the qualification requirements discussed in the Proxy Statement under “Corporate Governance at Entergy - Our Board Structure“Board of Directors - Identifying Director Candidates”; and
the candidate’s signed consent to be named in the Proxy Statement and a representation of such candidates’ intent to serve as a director for the entire term if elected.

Once the Corporate Governance Committee receives the recommendation, it may request additional information from the candidate about the candidate’s independence, qualifications, and other information that would assist the Corporate Governance Committee in evaluating the candidate, as well as certain information that must be disclosed about the candidate in the Proxy Statement, if nominated. The Corporate Governance Committee will apply the same standards in considering director candidates recommended by shareholders as it applies to other candidates.


Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

464

Item 11.  Executive Compensation

ENTERGY CORPORATION

Information called forconcerning compensation earned by this item concerning the directors and officers of Entergy Corporation is set forth in theits Proxy Statement, of Entergy Corporation to be filed in connection with itsthe Annual Meeting of StockholdersShareholders to be held on May 4, 2018, under the heading “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance,” which information is incorporated herein by reference.


Item 11.  Executive Compensation

ENTERGY CORPORATION

Information concerning the directors and officers of Entergy Corporation is set forth in the Proxy Statement7, 2021, under the headings “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” “Annual Compensation Programs Risk Assessment,” “Executive Compensation Tables,” “Nominees for the Board of Directors,“Pay Ratio Disclosure,” “Our 2021 Director Nominees,” and “Non-Employee“2020 Non-Employee Director Compensation,” all of which information is incorporated herein by reference. References in this section to the “Company” refer to Entergy Corporation.


ENTERGY ARKANSAS, ENTERGY LOUISIANA, ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, AND ENTERGY TEXAS


COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS


In this section,This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes Entergy Corporation’s executive compensation policies, programs, philosophy and decisions regarding the compensation earned by the following Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”) for 2020. It also explains how and why the Personnel Committee of Entergy Corporation’s Board of Directors arrived at the specific compensation decisions involving the NEOs in 2017 is discussed. Each officer’s title is provided as of December 31, 2017.2020 who were:

Name(1)
Title
A. Christopher Bakken, IIIExecutive Vice President, and Nuclear Operations/Chief Nuclear Officer
Marcus V. BrownExecutive Vice President and General Counsel
Leo P. DenaultChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
David D. EllisPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Entergy New Orleans
Haley R. FisackerlyPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Entergy Mississippi
Laura R. LandreauxPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Entergy Arkansas
Andrew S. MarshExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas
Phillip R. May, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer, Entergy Louisiana
Sallie T. RainerPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Entergy Texas
Charles L. Rice, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer, Entergy New Orleans
Richard C. RileyPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Entergy Arkansas
Roderick K. WestGroup President, Utility Operations

(1)Messrs. Bakken, Brown, Denault, Marsh, and West hold the positions referenced above as executive officers
(1)Messrs. Bakken, Brown, Denault, Marsh, and West hold the positions referenced above as executive officers of Entergy Corporation and are members of Entergy Corporation’s Office of the Chief Executive.Executive (“OCE”). No additional compensation was paid in 20172020 to any of these officers for their service as Named Executive OfficersNEOs of the Utility operating companies.

465


Entergy Corporation’s Compensation Principles and Philosophy


CD&A HighlightsEntergy Corporation’s executive compensation programs are based on a philosophy of pay for performance that supports its strategy and business objectives. It believes the executive pay programs:

Motivate its management team to drive strong financial and operational results by linking pay to performance.
Attract and retain a highly experienced, diverse and successful management team.
Incentivize and reward the achievement of results that are deemed by the Personnel Committee to be consistent with the overall goals and strategic direction that the Entergy Corporation Board has approved.
Create sustainable value for the benefit of all of Entergy Corporation’s stakeholders, including its customers, employees, communities and owners.
Align the interests of the executives and Entergy Corporation’s investors in its long-term business strategy by directly tying the value of equity-based awards to Entergy Corporation’s stock price performance and relative total shareholder return.

466

Executive Compensation Programs andBest Practices:

Entergy Corporation regularly reviews its executive compensation programs to align them with commonly viewed best practices in the market and to reflect feedback from discussions with Entergy Corporation’s investors on executive compensation.compensation.

Sound Program Design

Entergy Corporation’s executive compensation programs are designed to:

Pay for performance
Attract, retain, and motivate key executive officers who drive Entergy Corporation’s success and industry leadership
Provide market compensation payout opportunities
Align with the interests of Entergy Corporation’s long-term shareholders
Reflect best practices in the market

Executive Compensation Best Practices:


Changes Since 2017 Annual Meeting*To align with compensation best practices, and in response to investor feedback, beginning with the 2018-2020 performance period, added a cumulative utility earnings performance measure to the Long-Term Performance Incentive Program supplementing the relative total shareholder return measure historically used in this program
What Entergy Corporation Does
*Executive compensation programs are highly correlated to performance and focused on long-term value creation
Double trigger for cash severance payments orand equity acceleration in the event of a change in control
*Clawback policy that goes beyond Sarbanes-Oxley requirements
*Maximum payout capped at 200% of target under thefor annual incentive awards and Long-Term Performance Unit Program and under the Annual Incentive Plan for members of the Office of the Chief ExecutiveOCE
*Rigorous goal setting aligned with externally disclosed annual and multi-year financial targets
Minimum vesting periods for equity-based awards
*Long-term compensation mix weighted more toward performance units than service-based equity awards
*All long-term performance unitsincentive compensation is settled in shares of Entergy Corporation common stock
*Rigorous stock ownership and share retention requirements
*Executives required to hold substantially all equity compensation received by Entergy Corporation until stock ownership guidelines are met
*Annual Say on Pay vote
Annual Compensation Risk Assessment
What Entergy Corporation Doesn’t Do
×*
No 280G tax “gross up” payments in the event of a change in control

*×No tax “gross up” payments on any executive perquisites for members of the OCE, other than relocation benefits available to all eligible employees, and club dues for some of the Named Executive Officers.
*×No option repricing or cash buy-outs for underwater options without shareholder approval
*×No agreements providing for severance payments to executive officers that exceed 2.99 times annual base salary and annual incentive awards without shareholder approval
*×No unusual or excessive perquisites
×No hedging or pledging of Entergy Corporation common stock
*×No unusual or excessive perquisitesfixed term employment agreements
*×New officers are excluded fromNo new officer participation in the System Executive Retirement Plan
*×No grants of supplemental service credit to newly-hired officers under any of Entergy Corporation’s non-qualified retirement plans



467

How Entergy Corporation’s Pay for Performance PhilosophyCorporation Makes Compensation Decisions

Entergy Corporation’sThe Personnel Committee oversees the executive compensation programs and policies with the advice of its independent compensation consultant and support from Entergy Corporation’s management team.
Personnel CommitteeThe Personnel Committee is responsible for the review and approval of all aspects of the executive compensation programs and policies.
Among its duties, the Personnel Committee is responsible for approving the compensation for all members of the OCE, including:
Annual review of the compensation elements and mix of elements for the following year;
Annual review and approval of incentive program design, goals and objectives for alignment with Entergy Corporation’s compensation and business strategies;
Evaluation of Company and individual performance results in light of these goals and objectives;
Evaluation of the competitiveness of each executive officer’s total compensation package;
Approval of any changes to its executive officers’ compensation, including but not limited to, base salary, annual and long-term incentive award opportunities and retention programs;
Evaluation of the performance of Entergy Corporation’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; and
Reporting, at least annually, to the Entergy Corporation Board of Directors on succession planning.
The Personnel Committee also receives reports and engages on other significant matters affecting the general employee population, including workforce diversity, inclusion and belonging, organizational health and safety.
The Personnel Committee has the sole authority to hire its compensation consultant, approve its compensation, determine the nature and scope of its services, evaluate its performance and terminate its engagement.
ManagementEntergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) work closely with the Personnel Committee in managing the executive compensation programs and attend meetings of the Personnel Committee. Mr. Denault and the CHRO, Kathryn Collins since she joined Entergy Corporation, attended all of the Personnel Committee meetings held in 2020.
The Chief Executive Officer reviews with the committee the performance of the members of the OCE other than himself and makes recommendations to the committee regarding compensation for these executive officers.
Independent Compensation ConsultantDuring 2020, Pay Governance, LLC (“Pay Governance”) assisted the Personnel Committee with its responsibilities related to Entergy Corporation’s executive compensation programs.
Pay Governance:
Regularly attended meetings of the committee;
Conducted studies of competitive compensation practices;
Identified Entergy Corporation’s market surveys and proxy peer group;
Provided updates on executive compensation trends and regulatory developments;
Reviewed base salary, annual incentives and long-term incentive compensation opportunities relative to competitive practices; and
Developed conclusions and recommendations related to the executive compensation programs for consideration by the committee.

468


2021 Executive Compensation Program Enhancements

Annual Incentive Awards. Feedback from Entergy Corporation’s investors has indicated that environmental, social and governance (or ESG) issues are based onbeing viewed as increasingly vital to long-term performance. In addition, investors are expecting more transparency regarding corporate ESG commitments. This echoes Entergy Corporation’s own commitment to ESG and all of its critical stakeholders. Thus, Entergy Corporation conducted a philosophycomprehensive review of pay for performance that is embodiedits incentive program in 2020 to identify and prioritize the optimal incentive metrics – including ESG goals – to use in the design of its annual and long-term incentive plans. It believes the executive pay programs described in this section and in the accompanying tables have played a significant role in its ability to drive strong financial and operational results and to attract and retain a highly experienced and successful management team. The Annual Incentive Plan incentivizes and rewards the achievement of financial metrics that are deemed by the Personnel Committee to be consistent with the overall goals and strategic direction that the2021 program. Historically, Entergy Corporation Board has approved for Entergy Corporation. The long-term incentive programs further align the interests of Entergy Corporation’s executives and its shareholders by directly tying the value of the equity awards grantedused two financial measures to executives under these programs to Entergy Corporation’s stock price performance and total shareholder return. By incentivizing officers to achieve important financial and operational objectives and create long-term shareholder value, these programs play a key role in creating sustainable value for the benefit of all of Entergy Corporation’s stakeholders, including owners, customers, employees, and communities.

Incentive Programs and 2017 Incentive Pay Outcomes
Entergy Corporation believes that the 2017 incentive pay outcomes for the Named Executive Officers demonstrated the application of its pay for performance philosophy.
Annual Incentive Plan
Awards under the Executive Annual Incentive Plan, or Annual Incentive Plan, are tied to Entergy Corporation’s financial and operational performance throughdetermine the Entergy Achievement Multiplier (EAM)(“EAM”), which is the performance metric used to determine the maximum funding available for annual incentive awards. ESG and other performance metrics were considered in determining the allocation of incentive funds to certain workgroups and individual recipients. However, to demonstrate Entergy Corporation’s strong commitment to its ESG goals, and to more explicitly link compensation to the interests of its stakeholders, the EAM will be determined based on financial and non-financial measures beginning in 2021. Specifically, a financial measure will be weighted 60%, while quantitative and qualitative non-financial measures, including ESG metrics, will account for the remaining 40%.

Financial Measure: Keeping with the committee’s goal of aligning performance measures with financial results that link to externally communicated investor guidance, ETR Tax Adjusted earnings per share or ETR Tax Adjusted EPS will continue to be used as the financial measure to determine 60% of the EAM. ETR Tax Adjusted EPS is based on Entergy’s Adjusted Earnings Per Share (“ETR Adjusted EPS”), which is the earnings measure that is used for external guidance. ETR Adjusted EPS adjusts Entergy Corporation’s as reported (GAAP) earnings per share results to eliminate the impact of its Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, significant tax items and other non-routine items. To arrive at ETR Tax Adjusted EPS, ETR Adjusted EPS is adjusted to add back the effect of significant tax items, and to eliminate the effect of: (i) major storms, including the impact on total debt of pending securitizations, (ii) the resolution of certain unresolved regulatory litigation matters, (iii) unrealized gains or losses on equity securities, (iv) potential effects of federal income tax law changes, and (v) elective contributions to pension plans or trusts related to non-qualified postretirement benefits that deviate from original plan assumptions.

469

Non-Financial Measures: The following non-financial metrics will be used to determine 40% of the EAM for 2021:

MeasureDescriptionRationale
SafetyQuantitative measure of serious injury and fatalities per 100 employees or contractors as defined by EEI.
Ensures a safe and incident-free workplace is maintained for all of Entergy Corporation’s employees and contractors.
Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging (DIB)Overall qualitative assessment of DIB key performance indicators assessed in the workforce, workplace and marketplace, informed by quantitative measures; progress on DIB initiatives; and responsiveness to emergent issues.
Reinforces the commitment to be a fair and equitable work environment that is welcoming to all and allows Entergy Corporation to attract and retain superb talent, allowing it to execute its strategy to be the Premier Utility.
Drives an engaged workforce; customer-centric service and solutions; enhancement of owner value; and community partnerships.
Environmental StewardshipAssessment of progress toward environmental commitments through performance on key initiatives and Utility CO2 emission rate outcomes.
Reinforces Entergy Corporation’s commitment to long-term sustainability and a reduced impact on the environment. Ensures accountability for achieving its significant external commitments to reduce carbon emissions.
Customer Net Promoter ScoreUtilize quantitative Residential Net Promoter Score benchmark survey process.
Incentivizes actions that drive positive customer outcomes (as measured through customer feedback) including impacts on reliability improvements, responsiveness, continuous improvement and innovation.
Signals overall health and loyalty of Entergy Corporation’s customer relationship.

Targets for each of the non-financial measures will be clearly defined and will be designed to drive employee behaviors that support all four of Entergy Corporation’s stakeholders – customers, employees, communities and our owners.

Long-Term Performance Incentive Program (“LTIP”). In recent performance periods, Entergy Corporation has used two financial measures to determine awards under the plan. The 2017 EAM was determined based in equal part on Entergy Corporation’s success in achieving its consolidated operationalLTIP – a cumulative earnings per share (EPS) measure (most recently cumulative ETR Adjusted EPS) and consolidated operationalrelative total shareholder return (“TSR”). To emphasize the importance of strong cash generation for the long-term health of its business, Entergy Corporation is replacing the EPS measure with a credit measure – adjusted FFO/Debt ratio for the 2021 – 2023 performance period. The adjusted FFO/Debt ratio is the ratio of: (i) adjusted funds from operations calculated as operating cash flow goals set atadjusted for allowance for funds used during construction, working capital and the beginningeffects of securitization revenue, and the pre-defined exclusions discussed above for the annual incentives; to (ii) total debt, excluding outstanding or pending securitization debt. The Personnel Committee decided to use this ratio because it emphasizes financial stability, noting that a financially healthy utility creates the capacity to make investments on behalf of customers, addresses the needs of communities, provides low-cost access to capital markets and promotes employee confidence. Relative TSR will continue to be used as the other performance measure for the 2021 – 2023 LTIP performance period, with relative TSR weighted 80% and the credit measure weighted 20%. Relative TSR measures Entergy Corporation’s total TSR relative to the TSR of the year. These goalscompanies in the Philadelphia Utility Index as of December 31, 2020. Targets for the LTIP performance measures will include the same exclusions that will be used to determine the annual incentive financial measure targets.

2020 Incentive Payouts

Performance measures and targets for the 2020 annual incentive awards were approveddetermined by the Personnel Committee in January 2020 and the targets and measures for the 2018 – 2020 LTIP performance cycle were
470

established in January 2018. In January 2021, the Personnel Committee certified the results for the EAM for the 2020 annual incentive awards and the 2018 – 2020 LTIP performance cycle. The Personnel Committee did not make any adjustments to the targets for either program for the impact of COVID-19 on Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries.

Entergy Corporation believes the 2020 incentive pay outcomes for the NEOs demonstrate the application of its pay for performance philosophy.

Annual Incentive Awards

The Personnel Committee determined that the 2020 EAM would be based on two equally weighted performance metrics:

ETR Tax Adjusted Earnings Per Share (“ETR Tax Adjusted EPS”): Entergy Corporation uses a single non-GAAP earnings measure for guidance and investor reporting purposes that reflects its ongoing business. This measure, Entergy Adjusted Earnings Per Share (“ETR Adjusted EPS”) adjusts Entergy Corporation’s as reported (GAAP) earnings per share results to eliminate the impact of its Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, significant tax items and other non-routine items. ETR Tax Adjusted EPS is based on the externally reported ETR Adjusted EPS, which is then adjusted to add back the effect of significant tax items, and to eliminate the effect of major storms, the resolution of certain unresolved regulatory litigation matters, changes in federal income tax law and unrealized gains or losses on equity securities (the “Pre-Determined Exclusions”), as well as other items the Personnel Committee may consider appropriate adjustments based on management accountability and business rationale.

Entergy Adjusted Operating Cash Flow (“ETR Adjusted OCF”): ETR Adjusted OCF is calculated based on Entergy Corporation’s financial planas-reported (GAAP) operating cash flow, adjusted to eliminate the effect of any Pre-Determined Exclusions.

The 2020 annual incentive award targets and the Board’s overall goals for Entergy Corporation and were consistent with its published earnings guidance.

2017 Annual Incentive Plan Payout. For 2017,results determined by the Personnel Committee based on a recommendation ofwere:

Annual Incentive Program Performance Goals2020 Targets2020 Results
ETR Tax Adjusted EPS$5.60$6.90
ETR Adjusted OCF ($ billions)$3.450$3.127
EAM as a percentage of target100%120%
Average NEO Payout (as a percentage of target)124%

In January 2021, the FinancePersonnel Committee determined that managementETR Adjusted EPS exceeded its consolidated operational earnings per share goal of $5.05 per sharethe maximum by $2.17,$1.30, but fell short of achieving its consolidated operational operating cash flow goalETR Adjusted OCF target of $3.000$3.45 billion by approximately $227 million. $323 million, leading to a preliminary EAM of 118%. In recognition of management’s success in achieving positive outcomes in 2020 on certain strategic efforts deemed critical to Entergy Corporation’s long-term success, the committee exercised its discretion to increase the EAM by 2% to 120%. Based on each NEO’s individual accountabilities and accomplishments, the targets and ranges previously established by the Committee, these results resulted in a calculated EAMcommittee then determined individual annual incentive awards of 129%. This determined the maximum funding level for the plan and the maximum award, as a percentage of target, that could be received by any115% to 150% of the executive officers, subject to downward adjustment based on individual performance. After considering individual performance, including the role played by each of the Named Executive Officers, who are members of the Office of the Chief Executive, in advancing Entergy Corporation’s strategies and delivering the strong financial results in 2017, the Personnel Committee approved payouts of 129% of target opportunity for each of the Named Executive Officers, who are members ofNEOs.

Long-Term Performance Unit Program

In January 2018, the Office ofPersonnel Committee chose relative TSR and Cumulative Adjusted Utility, Plant & Other Earnings Per Share (“Cumulative Adjusted UP&O EPS”), each weighted equally, as the Chief Executive.

After the EAM was established to determine overall fundingperformance measures for the Annual Incentive Plan,2018 – 2020 LTIP performance period. Cumulative Adjusted UP&O EPS adjusts Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer allocated incentive award fundingcumulative operational Utility, Parent & Other results to individual business units based on business unit results.  Individual awards were determinedeliminate the impact of tax items and weather. Similar to the way targets are established for the Named Executive Officers who are not members ofannual incentive awards, the Office ofrelative TSR and Cumulative Adjusted UP&O EPS performance measures were established by the Chief Executive by their immediate supervisor based onPersonnel Committee after the individual officer’s key accountabilities, accomplishments, and performance. This resulted in payouts that ranged from 79% of target to 204% of target for the Named Executive Officers who are not membersBoard’s review of Entergy Corporation’s Officestrategic plan.
471


The targets and results for the Chief Executive.
Long-Term Incentives
Long term incentives consist of three components to incentivize long-term value creation -2018 – 2020 LTIP performance units, stock options, and restricted stock. Performance under the Long-Term Performance Unit Program is measured over

a three-year period by assessing Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return in relation to the total shareholder return of the companies included in the Philadelphia Utility Index. Payouts, if any, are based on Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return performance in relation to its peers and are not subject to adjustmentas determined by the Personnel Committee. Beginning with the 2018-2020 performance period, Entergy Corporation will be using a cumulative utility earnings measure, as well as relative total shareholder return to assess performance under the Long-Term Performance Unit Program. Entergy Corporation also uses stock options, which reward increases in the market value of its common stock, and restricted stock, which is an effective retention mechanism.Committee were:


Long-Term Performance Unit Program Payout. For the three-year performance period ending in 2017, Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return was in the third quartile, resulting in a payout of 31% of target for its executive officers. Payouts were made in shares of Entergy Corporation common stock which are required to be held by executive officers until they satisfy the executive stock ownership guidelines.
LTIP Results2018 - 2020 LTIP Target2018 - 2020 LTIP Result
Relative TSRMedian
2nd Quartile
Cumulative Adjusted UP&O EPS$15.20$15.25
Payout (as a percentage of target)100%126%


What Entergy Corporation Pays and Why


HowPrincipal Executive Compensation Elements

The principal components of Entergy Corporation Sets Target PayCorporation’s 2020 executive compensation programs and the purpose of each component were:


To develop a competitive compensation program,
Compensation ElementFormPerformance MetricsPrimary PurposeVesting PeriodSubject to Clawback
Base SalaryCashN/AProvides a base level of competitive cash compensation for executive talent.N/AN/A
Annual IncentiveCashETR Tax Adjusted EPS (50%)Motivates and rewards executives for performance on key financial measures during the year.1 yearü
ETR Adjusted OCF
(50%)
Long-Term Performance UnitsEquityRelative TSR (80%)Focuses the executive officers on building long-term shareholder value, growing earnings and increases executives’ ownership of Entergy Corporation common stock.3 yearsü
Cumulative ETR Adjusted EPS (20%)
Stock OptionsEquityN/AAlign interests of executives with long-term shareholder value, provide competitive compensation, and increase executives’ ownership in Entergy Corporation common stock.3 yearsü
Restricted StockEquityN/AAligns interests of executives with long-term shareholder value, provides competitive compensation, retains executive talent and increases the executives’ ownership in Entergy Corporation common stock.3 yearsü

Competitive Positioning

Market Data for Compensation Comparison

Annually, the Personnel Committee annually reviews compensation data from two sources:reviews:


Use of Competitive Data

The Personnel Committee uses publishedPublished and private compensation survey data to develop marketplace compensation levels for Entergy Corporation’s executive officers. The data compiled by Pay Governance, the Personnel Committee’s independent compensation consultant, Pay Governance LLC, compare the current compensation opportunities provided to eachconsultant;
472


For non-industry specific positions,Both utility and general industry data forto determine total cash compensation (base salary and annual incentive) since the market for talent is broader than thenon-industry specific roles;
Data from utility sector.
Forcompanies to determine total cash compensation for management positionsroles that are industry-specific,utility-specific, such as Group President, Utility Operations, data from utility companies for total cash compensation.Operations; and
For all positions, utilityUtility market data to determine long-term incentives for long-term incentives.all positions.


How the Personnel Committee Uses the Market Data

The survey data reviewed by the Committee cover hundreds of companies across a broad range of industries and approximately 60 investor-owned utility companies. In evaluating compensation levels against the survey data, the Committee considers only the aggregated survey data. The identities of the companies participating in the compensation survey data are not disclosed to, or considered by, the Committee in its decision-making process and, thus, are not considered material by the Committee.

ThePersonnel Committee uses this survey data to develop compensation opportunities that are designed to deliver total targetdirect compensation at(“TDC”) within a targeted range of approximately the 50th50th percentile of the surveyed companies in the aggregate. The survey data are the primary data used for purposes of assessing target compensation. As a result, Mr. Denault, Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer, is compensated at a higher level than the other Named Executive Officers, reflecting market practices that compensate chief executive officers at greater potential compensation levels with more pay “at risk” than other Named Executive Officers, due to the greater responsibilities and accountability required of a Chief Executive Officer. In most cases, the Committeecommittee considers its objectives to have been met if Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer and the 7eight other executive officers (including the applicable NEOs) who constitute what is referred to as the Office of the Chief ExecutiveOCE each has a target compensation opportunity that falls within thea targeted range of 85% - 115% of the 50th50th percentile of the survey data. Promoted officers or officersIn general, compensation levels for an executive officer who areis new to their roles maya position tend to be transitioned intoat the targeted marketlower end of the competitive range, over time. Actual compensation received by an individual officer may be above or below the targeted range based on an individual officer’s skills, performance,while seasoned executive officers whose experience and skill set are viewed as critical to retain would be positioned at the higher end of the competitive range. Generally, differences in the levels of TDC among the NEOs are primarily driven by the scope of their responsibilities, Entergy Corporationdifferences in the competitive market pay range for similar positions, performance and considerations of internal pay equity.


Proxy AnalysisPeer Group


Although the survey data described above are the primary data used in benchmarking compensation, the Committee reviews data derivedcommittee uses compensation information from the proxy statements of companies included in the Philadelphia Utility Index as an additional point of comparison. The Personnel Committee identified the Philadelphia Utility Index as the appropriate industry peer group because the companies included in this index, in the aggregate, are comparable to Entergy Corporation in terms of business and scale. The proxy data are used to compare the compensation levels of the Named Executive Officers with the compensation levels of the corresponding top five highest paid executive officers of the companies included in the Philadelphia Utility Index as reported in their proxy statements. The Personnel Committee uses this analysis to evaluate the overall reasonableness of Entergy Corporation’s compensation programs.programs and to determine relative TSR for the 2020 - 2022 LTIP performance period. The following companies were included in the Philadelphia Utility Index at the time the proxy data fromPersonnel Committee approved the 2016 filings were compiled:2020 compensation model and framework were:

ŸAES CorporationŸEl Paso Electric Co.*
ŸAmeren CorporationŸEversource Energy
ŸAmerican Electric Power Co. Inc.ŸExelon Corporation
ŸAmerican Water Works Company, Inc.ŸFirstEnergy Corporation
ŸCenterPoint Energy Inc.ŸNextEra Energy, Inc.
ŸConsolidated Edison Inc.ŸPG&EPinnacle West Capital Corporation
ŸDominion Resources Inc.EnergyŸPublic Service Enterprise Group, Inc.
ŸDTE Energy CompanyŸSouthern Company
ŸDuke Energy CorporationŸXcel Energy,
ŸEdison International

Executive Compensation Elements

The following table summarizes the elements of total direct compensation (TDC) granted or paid to the executive officers under Entergy Corporation’s 2017 executive compensation program. The program uses a mix of fixed and variable compensation elements and provides alignment with both short- and long-term business goals through annual and long-term incentives. The Personnel Committee establishes the performance measures and ranges of performance for the variable compensation elements. An individual’s award is based primarily on corporate performance, market-based compensation levels, and individual performance.  

Inc.
Edison International
ElementKey CharacteristicsWhy This Element Is PaidHow This Amount Is Determined2017 Decisions
Base SalaryFixed compensation component payable in cash. Reviewed annually and adjusted when appropriate.Provides a base level of competitive cash compensation for executive talent.Experience, job scope, market data, individual performance, and internal pay equity.All of the Named Executive Officers received increases in their base salaries ranging from 1.5% to 7.3%.
Annual Incentive AwardsVariable compensation component payable in cash based on performance against goals established annually.Motivate and reward executives for performance on key financial and operational measures during the year.
Target opportunity is determined based on job scope, market data, and internal pay equity.
For 2017, awards were determined based on success in meeting consolidated operational earnings per share and consolidated operational operating cash flow targets, subject to downward adjustment at the Personnel Committee’s discretion for members of the Office of the Chief Executive.
Mr. Denault's target annual incentive award for 2017 was 135% of base salary, and target awards were in the range of 40% to 70% of base salary for the other Named Executive Officers.

Strong operational and financial performance and a review of individual performance resulted in an award at 129% of target for Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer, and awards that ranged from 79% to 204% of target for the other Named Executive Officers.
Long-Term
Performance
Unit
Program
Each performance unit equals one share of Entergy Corporation’s common stock. Performance is measured at the end of a three-year performance period. Each unit also earns the equivalent of the dividends paid during the performance period. Performance units granted under the Long-Term Performance Unit Program along with accrued dividend equivalents are settled in shares of Entergy Corporation common stock.Focuses executive officers on building long-term shareholder value and increases executive officers’ ownership of Entergy Corporation common stock.
Formulaic. payout based on Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return relative to the total shareholder return of the companies in the Philadelphia Utility Index.

Beginning with the 2018-2020 performance period, payouts will be based on a cumulative utility earnings metric, as well as total shareholder return.
Performance unit grants for the 2017-2019 performance period represented approximately 39% of target TDC for Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer and approximately 21% to 31% of target for the other Named Executive Officers.

Unfavorable relative total shareholder return in 2015 and 2016, partially offset by strong relative total shareholder return in 2017, resulted in performance in the third quartile with a 6.7% TSR for the 2015-2017 performance period, yielding a payout of 31% of target for the Named Executive Officers.
Stock
Options
Non-qualified stock options are granted at fair market value, have a ten-year term, and vest over 3 years - 33 1/3% on each anniversary of the grant date.Reward executives for absolute value creation and coupled with restricted stock provide competitive compensation, retain executive talent, and increase the executive officers’ ownership in Entergy Corporation’s common stock.Job scope, market data, individual performance, and Entergy Corporation performance.Stock options in 2017 represented approximately 13% of target TDC for Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer and approximately 7% to 10% for the other Named Executive Officers.

*El Paso Electric Co. is no longer included in the Philadelphia Utility Index.

Restricted
Stock
Awards
Restricted stock awards vest over 3 years - 33 1/3% on each anniversary of the grant date, have voting rights, and accrue dividends during the vesting period.Coupled with stock options, align interests of executives with long-term shareholder value, provide competitive compensation, retain executive talent, and increase the executive officers’ ownership of Entergy Corporation common stock.Job scope, market data, individual performance, and Entergy Corporation performance.Restricted stock in 2017 represented approximately 13% of target TDC for Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer and approximately 7% - 10% for the other Named Executive Officers.
2020 Compensation Decisions

Fixed Compensation


Base Salary


The Personnel Committee determinesWhen setting the base salaries for all of the Named Executive OfficersNEOs who are members of the OfficeOCE, the Personnel Committee generally targets the range of compensation paid to similarly situated executive officers of the Chief Executive based on competitive compensationcompanies included in the market data performance considerations,previously discussed in this Compensation Discussion and advice provided by the Committee’s independent compensation consultant.Analysis under “Competitive Positioning.” For the other Named Executive Officers,NEOs, their salaries are established by their immediate supervisors using the same criteria. The Committee also considers internal pay equity; however,base salaries of the Committee has not established any predetermined formula against whichNEOs are considered annually as part of the base salary of one Named Executive Officer is measured against another officerperformance review process, and upon a NEO’s promotion or employee.

In 2017,other change in job responsibilities. Based on this review in 2020 and after reviewing the market data above, all of the Named Executive OfficersNEOs, other than Mr. Denault, received merit increases in their base salaries ranging from approximately 1.5%2.5% to 7.3%6.15%. The increasesIn 2020, Mr. Denault did not receive an increase in his base salary were based onsalary. Instead, the market data previously discussed in this CD&A under “What
473

Personnel Committee increased Mr. Denault’s TDC by increasing his long-term incentive target opportunities; thereby, increasing the portion of his compensation that is “at risk” and further aligning his interests with those of Entergy Corporation Pays and Why - How Entergy Corporation Sets Target Pay,” as well as an internal pay equity comparison.Corporation’s shareholders.


The following table sets forth the 20162019 and 20172020 base salaries for the Named Executive Officers. Changes in base salaries for 20172020 were effective in April 2017.April.

Named Executive Officer 2016 Base Salary 2017 Base SalaryNamed Executive Officer2019 Base Salary2020 Base Salary
A. Christopher Bakken, III $605,000 $620,125A. Christopher Bakken, III$654,078$673,700
Marcus V. Brown $605,000 $630,000Marcus V. Brown$666,250$690,000
Leo P. Denault $1,200,000 $1,230,000Leo P. Denault$1,260,000$1,260,000
David D. EllisDavid D. Ellis$313,388$321,849
Haley R. Fisackerly $350,000 $355,300Haley R. Fisackerly$376,023$388,244
Laura R. LandreauxLaura R. Landreaux$316,470$326,755
Andrew S. Marsh $559,408 $600,000Andrew S. Marsh$650,000$690,000
Phillip R. May, Jr. $356,650 $366,150Phillip R. May, Jr.$392,043$404,784
Sallie T. Rainer $319,475 $328,275Sallie T. Rainer$347,422$358,713
Charles L. Rice, Jr. $280,424 $286,424
Richard C. Riley $335,000 $344,200
Roderick K. West $659,120 $675,598Roderick K. West$714,013$731,863


Variable Compensation

Short-TermAnnual Incentive Compensation


Annual Incentive Plan

In 2020, annual incentive awards were tied to Entergy Corporation’s financial and operational performance through the EAM. Entergy Corporation includes performance-based incentives inuses the Named Executive Officers’ compensation packages because it believes performance-based incentives encourage the Named Executive Officers to pursue objectives consistent with the overall goals and strategic direction that the Board has approved for Entergy Corporation. The EAM is the performance metric usedfollowing process to determine the maximum percentage of target annual plan opportunities that will be paid each yearincentive awards:

Establish Performance Measures to each Named Executive Officer who are members of the Office of the Chief Executive under the Annual Incentive Plan. Once theDetermine EAM has been determined, individual awards for the Office of the Chief

Executive members may be adjusted downward, but not upward, from the EAM at the Personnel Committee’s discretion, based on individual performance and other factors deemed relevant by the Personnel Committee. For 2017, the target Annual Incentive Plan opportunities for each of the Named Executive Officers, expressed as a percentage of the officer’s base salary, were:

135% for Mr. Denault;
70% for Mr. Bakken, Mr. Brown, Mr. Marsh, and Mr. West;
60% for Mr. May; and
40% for Mr. Fisackerly, Ms. Rainer, Mr. Rice, and Mr. Riley.

The target opportunities established for these officers were comparable to the target opportunities historically set for these positions and levels of responsibility. Target opportunities for the Named Executive Officers who are members of the Office of the Chief Executive are established byPool.Annually, the Personnel Committee and these Named Executive Officers may earnengages in a maximum payout ranging from 0%rigorous process to 200% of their target opportunity, calculated as described in the table below.

Target award opportunities are set based on an executive officer’s position and executive management level within the Entergy organization. Executive management levels at Entergy Corporation range from Level 1 through Level 4. At December 31, 2017, Mr. Denault held a Level 1 position, Messrs. Bakken, Brown, Marsh, and West held positions in Level 2, Mr. May held a Level 3 position, and the remaining Named Executive Officers held positions in Level 4. Accordingly, their respective incentive award opportunities differ from one another based on their management level and the external market data developed by the Committee’s independent compensation consultant.

Each year the Personnel Committee reviewsdetermine the performance measures used to determine the EAM pool. In December 2016, the Personnel Committee decided to retain consolidated operational earnings per share and consolidated operational operating cash flow, each measure weighted equally, as the performance measures for determining the EAM pool. The Committee considered a variety of other potential measures, but determined that consolidated operational earnings per share and consolidated operational operating cash flow continued to be the best metrics to use because, among other things, they are objective measures that Entergy Corporation’s investors consider to be important in evaluating its financial performance and because Entergy Corporation’s goals in that regard are broadly communicated both internally and externally. This provides both discipline and transparency that the Committee believes are important objectives of any well designed incentive compensation plan.

EAM. The Personnel Committee also engages in a rigorous process each yearCommittee’s goal is to establish the target achievement levels for each of the EAM performance measures with a goal of establishing target achievement levels that are consistent with Entergy Corporation’s strategy and business objectives for the upcoming year, as reflected in its financialstrategic plan, and sufficientare designed to drive results that represent a high level of achievement, taking into consideration the applicable business environment and specific challenges facing it.achievement. These targetsmeasures are approved based on a comprehensive review of Entergy Corporation’s strategic plan by theits full Board of Entergy Corporation’s financial plan,Directors conducted in December of the preceding year and updated in January to reflect the most current information concerning changes in commodity market conditions and other key drivers of anticipated changes in performance from the preceding year.

Establish Target Achievement Levels.In January, after Entergy Corporation’s strategic plan is updated to reflect any changes from that reviewed in December, the Personnel Committee establishes the specific targets that must be achieved for each performance measure. The Personnel Committee also reviewsseeks to assure that the effects on plan resultstargets:

Take into account changes in the business environment and specific challenges facing Entergy Corporation;
Reflect an appropriate balancing of the various risks and opportunities that are recognized at the time the plan is set,targets are set; and
Are aligned with external expectations communicated to assure that targets thatEntergy Corporation’s shareholders.

Establish NEO Target Opportunities. In January of each year, the Personnel Committee establishes the target opportunities for the members of the OCE based on its review of the competitive analysis of job-specific market data prepared by Pay Governance as well as the officer’s role, individual performance and internal equity considerations. For the NEOs who are members of the OCE (Messrs. Bakken, Brown, Denault, Marsh and West), target award opportunities are established based on these factors. For the other NEOs, target award opportunities are determined based on their management level within the Entergy organization. Executive management levels at Entergy Corporation range from ML level 1 through ML level 4 (the “ML 1-4 Officers”). At December 31, 2020, Mr. May held a Level 3 position, and Mr. Ellis,
474

Mr. Fisackerly, Ms. Landreaux and Ms. Rainer held Level 4 positions. Accordingly, their respective incentive award opportunities differ from one another based on either their management level or the external market data developed by the Committee’s independent compensation consultant. The 2020 target opportunities were increased for Mr. Bakken, Mr. Brown, Mr. Marsh and Mr. West to align more closely with market data and internal pay equity. Mr. Denault’s 2020 target opportunity was unchanged from the level set in 2019 due to the Personnel Committee’s decision to increase his TDC by increasing his long-term incentive target opportunities. The target levels for the other NEOs are comparable to the levels set for 2019.

Determine the EAM.In January, after the end of the fiscal year, the Finance and Personnel Committees jointly review Entergy Corporation’s financial results and the Personnel Committee determines the EAM, which represents the level of success in achieving the performance objectives established by the committee and determines the maximum funding level of the annual incentive plan, reflect an appropriate balanceas a percentage of risksthe total target opportunity.

Determine Annual Incentive Awards. To determine individual executive officer awards under the annual incentive plan, the Personnel Committee considers not only each executive’s role in executing on Entergy Corporation’s strategies and opportunities. Thedelivering the financial performance achieved, but also the individual’s accountability for any challenges Entergy Corporation experienced during the year.

Establishing 2020 Financial Measures and Targets

Using the process described above, in December 2019, the Personnel Committee further confirmsdecided to use ETR Tax Adjusted EPS and ETR Adjusted OCF, with each measure weighted equally, as the performance measures for determining the 2020 EAM pool. ETR Tax Adjusted EPS is based on ETR Adjusted EPS, which is the primary earnings measure used by Entergy Corporation externally and the measure on which it provides annual earnings guidance. To arrive at ETR Tax Adjusted EPS, ETR Adjusted EPS is adjusted to add back the effect of any significant tax items that were excluded to arrive at ETR Adjusted EPS and to eliminate the earnings target it approveseffects, if any, of the Pre-Determined Exclusions.  ETR Adjusted OCF is alignedcalculated based on Entergy Corporation’s as-reported (GAAP) operating cash flow, adjusted to eliminate the effect of any significant non-routine items not representative of the ongoing business, such as items associated with the earnings guidancedecisions to sell or close the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants, and any Pre-Determined Exclusions. The Personnel Committee determined that will be communicatedETR Tax Adjusted EPS and ETR Adjusted OCF were the appropriate metrics to theuse for annual incentives in 2020 because:

They are based on objective financial markets, thus ensuringmeasures that the internal earnings target set for purposes of Entergy Corporation’s incentive compensation plans is aligned with the external expectations set and communicated to Entergy Corporation’s shareholders.

In January 2017, after full Board review of management’s 2017 financial plan for Entergy Corporation and engaging in the process discussed above, the Committee determined the Annual Incentive Plan targetsits investors consider to be usedimportant in evaluating its financial performance;
They are based on the same metrics we use for purposesinternal and external financial reporting; and
They provide both discipline and transparency.

The Personnel Committee considered it appropriate to use ETR Tax Adjusted EPS, which adds back the effect of determining Annual Incentive Plan awards for 2017. In keeping with its past practice,significant tax items that may have been excluded from ETR Adjusted EPS, as the earnings measure because of the significant financial benefits to Entergy Corporation resulting from such tax items and the management effort required to achieve them. The Personnel Committee also determined that for purposesconsidered the appropriateness of measuring performance against such targets, the Committee would excludeexcluding the effect on reported results of anyeach of the specific Pre-Determined Exclusions it had identified from each of the financial measures. It viewed the exclusion of major storms that may occur during the year. This exclusion was viewed by the Committee

as appropriate because although Entergy Corporation includes estimates for storm costs in its financial plan, it does not include estimates for a major storm event, such as a hurricane. The Personnel Committee alsoconsidered the exclusion of any unanticipated effects of the tax reform legislation adopted at the end of 2017 to be appropriate because of the lingering uncertainty around those effects and the inability of management to impact those results. The Personnel Committee approved the other exclusions from reported results for purposes of calculating achievement levels,- for the impact of certain longstandinglegacy unresolved regulatory litigation relating to the System Agreement among the Utility operating companies, and for the potential effects of changes in tax laws, given the possibility that significant unanticipated changes in tax laws might be enacted during the year that could impact reported results. The Committee believed that each of these adjustments was appropriateunrealized gains and losses on securities held by Entergy Corporation’s nuclear decommissioning trusts - primarily because of the significant uncertainty around each such item and management’s inability to influence anyeither of the related outcomes. The Personnel Committee further provided that in determining the 2020 EAM, the 2020 results would be subject to adjustment for other items the committee may consider appropriate in its review of 2020 performance, considering management accountability and business
475

rationale, and the EAM as so calculated would be subject to further adjustment at the committee’s discretion based on business considerations.

In determining the targets to set for 2017,2020, the Personnel Committee reviewed anticipated drivers and risks to Entergy Corporation’s expectations for consolidated operationalits adjusted earnings per share and consolidated operational operating cash flow for 20172020 as set forth in Entergy Corporation’sits financial plan, as well as factors driving the strong financial performance achieved in 2019. The Personnel Committee confirmed that the proposed plan targets for ETR Tax Adjusted EPS and asETR Adjusted OCF reflected significant growth in its publishedthe core earnings guidance. Under the plan,and consolidated operational earnings per share were expected to decline from 2016 results due primarily to the significant impact on 2016 operational results of certain tax benefits and, to a lesser extent, favorable weather, which were not anticipated to recur in 2017. Together, these factors accounted for $2.06 of consolidated operational earnings per share for 2016. Under the plan, consolidated operational operating cash flow measures underlying the annual incentive plan targets. The Personnel Committee also noted that while the 2020 ETR Tax Adjusted EPS target was expected to increase slightlyless than the 2019 results, the 2020 target represented significant growth in 2017the underlying ETR Adjusted EPS both from 2016 results.

In evaluating2019 results and from the proposed targets,2019 target, with the primary driver of the higher results in 2019 being certain one-time tax benefits that would not be recurring in 2020. The Personnel Committee also considered the potential impact on consolidated operational earnings per share and consolidated operational operating cash flow of certaina wide range of identified risks and opportunities including differences in wholesale energy prices and capacity factors at Entergy Wholesale Commodities, utility sales, operations and maintenance costs, interest expense, and certain tax and regulatory risks. This evaluation indicatedconfirmed that there was significantly more downside risk than upside opportunity in the related annual incentive plan targets and, as a result, that there wasreflected a reasonable degree of challenge embedded in the targets.

After adjusting to eliminate the impact of weather and tax benefits, the 2017 plan targets required management to achieve (i) slight growth in utility operational earnings despite higher nuclear and pension costs and the absence of certain favorable items from 2016 and (ii) modest growth in Entergy Wholesale Commodities operational earnings, despite an expectation for further declines in wholesale energy and capacity revenues due in part to the sale of FitzPatrick in the first quarter of 2017. While the resulting earnings target represented a decline from 2016 operational results, the Committee recognized that in addition to the favorable weather and tax items that were not expected to recur in 2017, management would be challenged in 2017 by significantly higher nuclear costs as they executed on its nuclear strategic plan. Thus, the Committee concluded, based on a careful review of the overall plan, that the targets derived from the plan challenged management appropriately to deliver growth in Entergy Corporation’s core business while continuing to manage the significant risks at Entergy Wholesale Commodities and represented an appropriate balancing of Entergy Corporation’s businesssuch risks and opportunities for 2017.and an appropriate degree of challenge.


2020 Performance Assessment

The following table shows the resulting Annual Incentive Plan2020 annual incentive plan performance metrics and targets established by the Personnel Committee in January 2017,to determine the 2020 EAM and 20172020 results:

Annual Incentive Plan Targets and Results
Performance Goals(1)
WeightMinimumTargetMaximum2020 Results
ETR Tax Adjusted EPS ($)50%5.045.606.166.90
ETR Adjusted OCF ($ billions)50%3.0703.4503.8303.127
EAM as % of Target25%100%200%120%
 
Performance Goals(1)
 
 MinimumTargetMaximum2017 Results
Consolidated Operational Earnings Per Share$4.55$5.05$5.55$7.22
Consolidated Operational Operating Cash Flow ($ billion)$2.600$3.000$3.400$2.773
EAM as % of Target25%100%200%129%
(1)Payouts for performance between achievement levels are calculated using straight-line interpolation, with no payout for performance below the minimum achievement level for both performance measures.

(1)Payouts for performance between minimum and target achievement levels and between target and maximum levels are calculated using straight-line interpolation. There is no payout for performance below minimum.



In January 2018,2021, the Finance and Personnel Committees jointly reviewed Entergy Corporation’s financial results against the performance objectives reflected in the table above. Management discussed with the Committeescommittees Entergy Corporation’s ETR Tax Adjusted EPS and the consolidated operational earnings per share and consolidated operational operating cash flowETR Adjusted OCF results for 2017,2020, including primary factors explaining how those results compared to the 20172020 business plan and Annual Incentive Plan targets. Consolidated operational earningsannual incentive plan targets set in January 2020. ETR Tax Adjusted EPS exceeded the ETR Tax Adjusted EPS target of $5.60 per share exceeded the operational earnings per share goal of $5.05 per share set at the beginning of the year by $2.17, due in large part to a non-cash restructuring tax benefit,$1.30, but management fell short of achieving its consolidated operational operating cash flow goalETR Adjusted OCF target of $3.000$3.45 billion by approximately $227$323 million, leading to a calculatedpreliminary EAM of 129%118%. OperationalThese results excludedreflected a positive adjustment of $0.10 to ETR Tax Adjusted EPS and a positive adjustment of $274 million to ETR Adjusted OCF for the impact of certain special items that were excluded from as-reported (GAAP)effects on earnings per share and operatingoperational cash flow to determine consolidated operational earnings per share and consolidated operational operating cash flow, including asset impairments and related write-offs at Entergy Wholesale Commodities related toof major storms impacting Entergy Corporation’s 2016 decision to close two nuclear generating plants, and certain costs associatedservice area during 2020, consistent with nuclear plant closings, and charges recorded at the end of 2017 relating to the impact of recently enacted federal income tax law changes. Consistent with determinations made by the Personnel CommitteePre-Determined Exclusions approved when the targets were set adjustments wereat the beginning of the year. The results also reflected a positive adjustment of $100 million to ETR Adjusted OCF for the effect on operational cash flow of additional voluntary contributions made to Entergy Corporation’s pension plan in 2020 over and above the reportedrequired level of contributions, which adjustment was made because the committee did not consider it appropriate for management to be penalized in the incentive compensation process for choosing to make such elective contributions, consistent with the Pre-Determined Exclusion for items the committee determined should be excluded based on management accountability and business rationale.

The Personnel Committee considered whether 2020 ETR Tax Adjusted EPS or ETR Adjusted OCF should be adjusted for any other factors that had impacted 2020 results. The committee noted that 2020 revenues and cash flow had been adversely impacted by reduced sales resulting from unfavorable weather, the COVID-19 pandemic and, to a lesser extent, major storms, which collectively reduced ETR Adjusted EPS by approximately $0.71 per share, and ETR Adjusted OCF by approximately $663 million as compared to plan. In addition, the Personnel Committee noted that ETR Adjusted OCF had been further reduced by approximately $178 million due to increased customer arrearages as a result of regulatory moratoria on customer disconnects following the onset of the pandemic. As noted, both ETR Tax Adjusted EPS and ETR Adjusted OCF were adjusted to reflect the impact of
476

major storms as a Pre-Determined Exclusion. However, the committee decided not to adjust the results to exclude the impact of Hurricane Harvey and the resolution of certain longstanding System Agreement litigation, but these adjustments had only a negligible impact on the calculated EAM.

     The Committee reviewed certain sensitivities as part of its review of the calculation of the EAM and noted that Entergy Corporation far exceeded its consolidated operational earnings per share goal in 2017, as noted, due in large part to a restructuring tax benefit, partially offset by unfavorable weather at the utility, and that unfavorable weather at the utility also accounted for approximately $128 million of the $227 million shortfall in consolidated operational operating cash flow. Had the EAM been calculated to exclude bothreflect the impact of the restructuring tax benefit andCOVID-19 pandemic, the disconnect moratoria or the unfavorable weather the calculated EAM would have been 140%. This indicated that the underlying performance of the core business, without regardexperienced in 2020.

In addition to the impact of tax items and weather, was significantly stronger than implied by the calculated EAM. However, consistent with the plan design,foregoing financial results, the Personnel Committee did not make any adjustments for these factors to the consolidatedconsidered management’s degree of success in achieving various operational earnings per share and consolidated operational operating cash flow results to determine the EAM for 2017. The Committee also noted that its utility, parent, and other adjusted earnings of $4.57 per share for 2017 were slightly above the high end of the guidance range Entergy Corporation had provided to investorsregulatory goals set out at the beginning of the year and in overcoming certain challenges that arose in the business during the course of the year. The committee took note of not only the many ways management had created value for this extremely important measureall Entergy Corporation’s key stakeholders during 2020, but also the major challenges that were overcome in the process, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges of responding to three hurricanes in a record-breaking storm season for the Gulf Coast. The committee also noted that despite these challenges, management had remained focused on achieving strong financial results for the benefit of all of its core utility earnings.

In determining individual executive officer awards understakeholders while at the Annual Incentive Plan, forsame time driving positive outcomes in certain areas that would contribute to Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officerslong term sustainability, including particularly the achievement of its 2020 CO2 emissions goal, development and announcement of its goal to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and significant enhancements to its sustainability disclosure and reporting, and substantial progress in other important ESG and sustainability efforts. In recognition of these accomplishments, which the Named Executive Officers,committee considers to be critical to Entergy Corporation’s long-term success, the committee exercised its discretion to increase the EAM by 2% to 120%.

To determine individual NEO annual incentive awards for the NEOs who are member of the OCE, the Personnel Committee considered individual performance in executing on Entergy Corporation’s strategies and delivering the strong financial performance achieved in 2020. In addition, the Personnel Committee considered the individual’s key accountabilities and accomplishments in relation to certain operational and regulatory challenges Entergy Corporation experienced during the year. With these considerations in mind, the Personnel Committee approved payouts ranging from 115% to 120% of target for each of the NEOs who are members of the Office of the Chief Executive, the Committee considered individual performance and, in particular, whether there were additional factors beyond those captured by the EAM measures that should be taken into account in determining whether to exercise negative discretion to reduce awards below the levels determined by the EAM. In determining the extent of negative discretion, if any, that it would exercise with respect to each executive officer, the Committee considered the executive’s key accountabilities and accomplishments, and individual performance executing on Entergy Corporation’s strategies in 2017. Based on these considerations, the Committee decided to award a payout equal to the EAM, or 129% of target, for Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer and the other Named Executive Officers who are members of the Office of the Chief Executive.OCE.


After the EAM was established to determine overall funding for the Annual Incentive Plan,annual incentive awards, Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer allocated incentive award funding to individual business units based on business unit results. Individual awards were determined for the remaining Named Executive OfficersNEOs who are not members of the Office of the Chief ExecutiveOCE by their immediate supervisor based on the individual officer’s key accountabilities, accomplishments, and performance. This resulted in payouts that ranged from 79%117% of target to 204%150% of target for the Named Executive OfficersNEOs who are not members of the Office of the Chief Executive.OCE.



Based on the foregoing evaluation of management performance, the Personnel Committee approvedNamed Executive Officers received the following Annual Incentive Planannual incentive payouts to each Named Executive Officer for 2017:2020:

Named Executive OfficerBase SalaryTarget as Percentage of Base SalaryPayout as Percentage of Target2020 Annual
Incentive Award
A. Christopher Bakken, III$673,70075%115%$581,066
Marcus V. Brown$690,00080%120%$662,400
Leo P. Denault$1,260,000140%120%$2,116,800
David D. Ellis$321,84940%128%$164,955
Haley R. Fisackerly$388,24440%150%$232,737
Laura R. Landreaux$326,75540%128%$167,153
Andrew S. Marsh$690,00085%120%$703,800
Phillip R. May, Jr.$404,78460%117%$284,881
Sallie T. Rainer$358,71340%122%$175,713
Roderick K. West$731,86380%115%$673,314

477

Named Executive OfficerBase SalaryTarget as Percentage of Base SalaryPayout as Percentage of Target
2017 Annual
Incentive Award
A. Christopher Bakken, III$620,12570%129%$559,973
Marcus V. Brown$630,00070%129%$568,890
Leo P. Denault$1,230,000135%129%$2,142,045
Haley R. Fisackerly$355,30040%119%$169,123
Andrew S. Marsh$600,00070%129%$541,800
Phillip R. May, Jr.$366,15060%137%$300,000
Sallie T. Rainer$328,27540%119%$156,259
Charles L. Rice, Jr.$286,42440%79%$91,000
Richard C. Riley$344,20040%204%$280,661
Roderick K. West$675,59870%129%$610,065

Nuclear Retention Plan

Mr. Bakken participates in the Nuclear Retention Plan, a retention plan for officers and other leaders with expertise in the nuclear industry. The Personnel Committee authorized this plan to attract and retain key management and employee talent in the nuclear power field, a field that requires unique technical and other expertise that is in great demand in the utility industry. The plan provides for bonuses to be paid annually over a three-year employment period with the bonus opportunity dependent on the participant’s management level and continued employment. Each annual payment is equal to an amount ranging from 15% to 30%Table of the employee’s base salary as of their date of enrollment in the plan. Mr. Bakken’s participation in the plan commenced in May 2016 and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the plan, in May 2017, 2018, and 2019, subject to his continued employment, Mr. Bakken will receive a cash bonus equal to 30% of his base salary as of May 1, 2016. This plan does not allow for accelerated or prorated payout upon termination of any kind. The three-year coverage period and percentage of base salary payable under the plan are consistent with the terms of participation of other senior nuclear officers who participate in this plan. In May 2017, Mr. Bakken received a cash bonus of $181,500 which equaled 30% of his May 1, 2016, base salary of $605,000.Contents

Long-Term Incentive Compensation


Entergy Corporation’s goal for itsOverview

Long-term incentive compensation, consisting solely of equity awards in 2020, represents the largest portion of executive officer compensation, and as noted earlier, the increase in Mr. Denault’s TDC opportunity was delivered in the form of long-term incentive compensation is to focus the executive officers on building shareholder value and to increase the executive officers’ ownership of Entergy Corporation’s common stock in order to more closely align their interest with those of Entergy Corporation’s shareholders. In its long-term incentive compensation programs,compensation. Entergy Corporation usesbelieves the combination of long-term incentives it employs provides a mix of performance units, restricted stock,compelling performance-based compensation opportunity, acts in retaining the senior management team, and stock options. Performance units are used to deliver more than a majority ofaligns the total target long-term incentive awards. For periods through the end of 2017, performance units reward the Named Executive Officers on the basis of total shareholder return, which is a measure of stock price appreciation and dividend payments, in relation to the companies in the Philadelphia Utility Index. Beginning with the 2018-2020 performance period, a cumulative utility earnings metric has been added to the Long-Term Performance Unit Program to supplement the relative total shareholder return measure that historically has been used in this program with each measure equally weighted. Restricted stock ties the executive officers’ long-term financial interest to the long-term financial interests of Entergy Corporation’s shareholders. Stock options provide a direct incentive to increaseexecutive officers with the valueinterests of its shareholders and customers by enhancing executives focus on Entergy Corporation’s common stock.long-term goals. In general, Entergy Corporation seeks to allocate the total value of long-term incentive compensation 60% to performance units and 40% to a combination of stock options and restricted stock, equally divided in value, based on the value the compensation model seeks to deliver. Awards

For each NEO who is a member of the OCE, a dollar value is established to determine that NEO’s long-term incentive awards target. The targeted award value for individual Named Executive Officers may vary from this target as a result ofeach NEO is determined based on market median compensation data for the officer’s role, adjusted to reflect individual performance promotions, and internal pay equity.

The In January 2020, the Personnel Committee approved the 2020 long-term incentive award target amounts for each NEO with each NEO’s target amount increasing in recognition of the contributions made to Entergy Corporation in 2019. This target amount was then converted into the number of performance units, forstock options and shares of restricted stock granted to each NEO based on the 2015-2017 performance period were awarded underallocation described above.

In consultation with Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer, the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan and Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan (the “2011 Equity Ownership Plan”) and the performance units for the

2016-2018 and 2017-2019 performance periods and allPersonnel Committee reviews each of the sharesother NEO’s performance, role and responsibilities, strengths, developmental opportunities and internal equity and allocates awards of restricted stock and stock options grantedto each of these officers based on these factors. Grants of long-term performance units for these NEOs were determined based on the average of the market data for the officers within a specific management level, without regard to the Named Executive Officers in 2017 were granted pursuant to the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan (the “2015 Equity Ownership Plan,”officer’s specific job function, and together with the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan (the “Equity Ownership Plans”). The Equity Ownership Plans require both a change in control and an involuntary job loss or substantial diminution of duties (a “double trigger”) for the acceleration of these awards upon a change in control.allocated as described above.


2020 Long-Term Incentive Award Mix

Long-Term Performance Unit Program


Entergy Corporation issuesThe NEOs are issued performance unit awards tounder the Named Executive Officers under its Long-Term Performance Unit Program. LTIP.

Each performance unit represents the value of one share of Entergy CorporationCorporation’s common stock at the end of the three-year performance period, plus dividends accrued during the performance period. The Personnel Committee sets payout opportunities for the program at the outset of each performance period, and the program is structured to reward Named Executive Officers only if performance goals approved by the Personnel Committee are met. The Personnel Committee has no discretion to make awards if minimum performance goals are not achieved.

The performance units granted under the Long-Term Performance Unit Program and accrued dividends on any shares earned during the performance period are settled in shares of Entergy Corporation common stock rather than cash. stock.
The Personnel Committee sets payout opportunities for the program at the outset of each performance period.
No shares are issued, including shares attributable to accrued dividends, unlesspayout under this program will be made if relative TSR for the performance goals are achieved. period falls within the lowest quartile of the peer companies in the Philadelphia Utility Index and Cumulative ETR Adjusted EPS is below the minimum performance goal.
All shares paid out under the Long-Term Performance Unit ProgramLTIP are required to be retained by theEntergy Corporation’s officers until applicable executive stock ownership requirements are met.


The Long-Term Performance Unit ProgramLTIP specifies a minimum, target and maximum achievement level, the achievement of which will determine the number of performance units that may be earned by each participant. Entergy Corporation measuresFor the 2020 – 2022 LTIP performance by assessing Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return relative toperiod, the total shareholder return of the companies in the Philadelphia Utility Index, which Entergy Corporation refers to as it peer companies. The Personnel Committee identifiedchose the Philadelphia Utility Index asperformance measures and targets set forth below.

478

2020-2022 LTIP Unit Program Period: Measures and Goals(1)
Performance Measures(1)
LTIP
Measure Weight
Payout
Relative TSR80%
Minimum (25%) - Bottom of 3rd Quartile
Target (100%) - Median Percentile
Maximum (200%) - Top Quartile
Cumulative ETR Adjusted EPS20%Minimum (25%) - $16.07
Target (100%) - $17.85
Maximum (200%) - $19.63
(1)Payouts for performance between achievement levels are calculated using straight-line interpolation, with no payouts for performance below the appropriate industry peer groupminimum achievement level for this purpose because the companies included in this index, in the aggregate, are comparable to Entergy Corporation in terms of business and scale. both performance measures.

Performance Measures

Relative TSR

The Personnel Committee chose relative total shareholder returnTSR as a performance measure of performance because it reflects Entergy Corporation’s creation of shareholder value relative to other electric utilities included in the Philadelphia Utility Index over the performance period. It also takes into account dividends paidBy measuring performance in relation to an industry benchmark, this measure is intended to isolate and reward management for the creation of shareholder value that is not driven by the companies in this index and normalizes certain events that affect the industry as a whole.

Minimum, target and maximum performance levels are determined by reference to the ranking of Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return againstTSR in relation to the total shareholder returnTSR of the companies in the Philadelphia Utility Index.

Performance Unit Program Grants. At any given time, a participant in the Long-Term Performance Unit Program may be participating in up to three performance periods. During 2017, eligible participants were participating in the 2015-2017, 2016-2018, and 2017-2019 performance periods. Subject to achievement of the applicable performance levels as described below, the The Personnel Committee established the following target performance unit payout opportunities for each of the 2015-2017, 2016-2018, and 2017-2019 performance periods.

Named Executive Officer
2015-2017
Target
2016-2018
Target
2017-2019
 Target
A. Christopher Bakken, III (1)
3,6397,2898,300
Marcus V. Brown6,5508,2008,300
Leo P. Denault33,10041,70048,700
Haley R. Fisackerly1,4501,8001,850
Andrew S. Marsh6,5508,2008,300
Phillip R. May, Jr.2,0502,7003,150
Sallie T. Rainer1,4501,8001,850
Charles L. Rice, Jr.1,4501,8001,850
Richard C. Riley1,4501,8001,850
Roderick K. West6,5508,2008,300

(1)
As a new hire in 2016, Mr. Bakken received pro-rated target award opportunities for the 2015-2017 and 2016-2018 performance periods.

The range of potential payouts for the 2015-2017, 2016-2018, and 2017-2019 performance periods under the program is shown below.
Performance LevelZeroMinimumTargetMaximum
Total Shareholder ReturnFourth QuartileBottom of Third QuartileMedian percentileTop Quartile
PayoutNo PayoutMinimum Payout of 25% of target100% of target200% of Target
For all performance periods, there is no payout for performance that falls within the lowest quartile of performance of the peer companies, and for top quartile performance a maximum payout of 200% of target is earned. Payouts between minimum and target and between target and maximum are calculated by interpolating between the performance of the company at the top of the fourth quartile of performance of the peer companies and the median or between the median and the performance of the company at the bottom position of the top quartile of performance of the peer companies, respectively.

Payout for the 2015-2017 Performance Period. In January 2018, the Committee reviewed Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return for the 2015-2017 performance period in order to determine the payout to participants. The Committee compared Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return against the total shareholder return of the companies that compriseidentified the Philadelphia Utility Index withas the appropriate industry peer group for determining relative TSR because the companies included in this index, in the aggregate, are deemed to be comparable to Entergy Corporation in terms of business and scale.

Cumulative ETR Adjusted EPS

Cumulative ETR Adjusted EPS, which adjusts Entergy Corporation’s as reported (GAAP) results to eliminate the impact of earnings or loss from Entergy Wholesale Commodities and other non-routine items, was selected in 2020 as a performance measures and range of potential payouts for the 2015-2017 performance period similar to that discussed above. As recommended by the Finance Committee,measure because the Personnel Committee concluded thatwished to incentivize management to achieve steady, predictable earnings growth for Entergy Corporation over the 3 year performance period, and because it aligns with the earnings measure used to communicate Entergy Corporation’s relative total shareholder returnearnings expectations externally to investors.

In a manner similar to the way targets are established for the 2015-2017 performance period fell in the bottom of the third quartile, yielding a payout of 31% of targetannual incentives, targets for the Named Executive Officers.Cumulative ETR Adjusted EPS performance measure were established by the Personnel Committee after the Entergy Corporation Board’s review of Entergy’s strategic plan for the three-year period beginning in 2020 and are consistent with the earnings expectations for Entergy Corporation that are communicated to investors. These targets also incorporate the Pre-Determined Exclusions discussed previously with respect to the annual incentive measures.


Named Executive Officer
2015-2017
Target
Number of Shares Issued
Value of Shares Actually Issued(1)
Grant Date Fair Value
A. Christopher Bakken, III(2)
3,6391,212$95,154$360,334
Marcus V. Brown6,5502,287$179,552$648,581
Leo P. Denault33,10011,554$907,105$3,277,562
Haley R. Fisackerly1,450506$39,726$143,579
Andrew S. Marsh6,5502,287$179,552$648,581
Phillip R. May, Jr.2,050716$56,213$202,991
Sallie T. Rainer1,450506$39,726$143,579
Charles L. Rice, Jr.1,450506$39,726$143,579
Richard C. Riley1,450506$39,726$143,579
Roderick K. West6,5502,287$179,552$648,581

(1)Value determined based on the closing price of Entergy Corporation’s common stock on January 17, 2018 ($78.51), the date the Personnel Committee certified the 2015-2017 performance period results.
(2)As a new hire in 2016, Mr. Bakken received pro-rated target award opportunities for the 2015-2017 performance period.


Stock Options and Restricted Stock


Entergy Corporation grants stock options and restricted stock as a long-term incentive to its executive officers. As previously discussed, the Personnel Committee considers several factors in determining the number of stock options and shares of restricted stock it will grant tobecause they align the Named Executive Officers, includinginterests of the executive officers with long-term shareholder value, provide competitive compensation, and increase the executives’ ownership in Entergy Corporation and individual performance, internal pay equity, prevailing market practice, targeted long-term value created by the use ofcommon stock. Generally, stock options are granted with a maximum term of ten years, and restricted stock, and the potential dilutive effect of stock option and restricted stock grants. Of these factors, the Committee’s assessment of individual performance of each Named Executive Officer is the most important factor in determining the number of shares of restricted stock and stock options awarded, except with respect to the Chief Executive Officer for whom comparative market data is the most important factor. The Committee, in consultation with Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer, reviewsvest one-third on each of the other Named Executive Officer’s performance, role and responsibilities, strengths, and developmental opportunities. Stock option and restricted stock awards for Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer are determined solely by the Personnel Committee on the basisfirst three anniversaries of the same considerations.

The following table sets forth the numberdate of stock options and shares of restricted stock granted to each Named Executive Officer in 2017.grant. The exercise price for each option granted in 2020 was $70.53,$131.72, which was the closing price of Entergy Corporation’s common stock on the date of grant. Shares of restricted stock vest one-third on each of the first three anniversaries
479

Named Executive OfficerStock OptionsShares of Restricted Stock
A. Christopher Bakken, III37,6005,200
Marcus V. Brown44,0006,100
Leo P. Denault179,40017,000
Haley R. Fisackerly7,600850
Andrew S. Marsh44,0006,100
Phillip R. May, Jr.10,5001,100
Sallie T. Rainer7,800900
Charles L. Rice, Jr.3,900550
Richard C. Riley8,0001,000
Roderick K. West29,2003,200
of the date of grant, are paid dividends which are reinvested in shares of Entergy Corporation common stock and have full voting rights. The dividend reinvestment shares are subject to forfeiture similar to the terms of the original grant.


2020 Long-Term Incentive Awards

In January 2020, the Personnel Committee granted the following long-term performance units, stock options and shares of restricted stock to each NEO. The number of long-term performance units, stock options and shares of restricted stock were determined as discussed above under “Long-Term Incentive Compensation - Overview.”

Named Executive Officer2020-2022
Target LTIP Units
Stock OptionsShares of 
Restricted Stock
A. Christopher Bakken, III7,75829,2793,104
Marcus V. Brown7,57128,5743,029
Leo P. Denault31,263117,99012,505
David D. Ellis9503,200500
Haley R. Fisackerly9504,300750
Laura R. Landreaux9504,300750
Andrew S. Marsh9,56036,0793,824
Phillip R. May, Jr.1,4007,3001,100
Sallie T. Rainer9504,300750
Roderick K. West8,40131,7053,361

All of the performance units, shares of restricted stock and stock options granted to the NEOs in 2020 were granted pursuant to the 2019 Omnibus Incentive Plan or 2019 OIP. The 2019 OIP requires both a change in control and an involuntary job loss without cause or a resignation by the NEO for good reason within 24 months following a change in control (a “double trigger”) for the acceleration of these awards upon a change in control.

2020 LTIP Payouts

Payout for the 2018 – 2020 LTIP Performance Period. In January 2018, the Personnel Committee chose relative TSR and Cumulative Adjusted UP&O EPS as the performance measures, each weighted equally, for the 2018 – 2020 LTIP performance period. Cumulative Adjusted UP&O EPS, which adjusted Entergy Corporation’s operational Utility, Parent & Other results to eliminate the impact of tax items and weather (the “UP&O Adjustments”), was added as a performance measure because it aligned with Entergy Corporation’s externally communicated earnings measure on its core utility business and was the primary measure on which Entergy Corporation communicated its long term earnings outlooks in 2018. Similar to the way targets are established for the annual incentive program, targets for the Cumulative Adjusted UP&O EPS performance measure were established by the Personnel Committee after the Entergy Corporation Board’s review of Entergy Corporation’s strategic plan. These targets also exclude the Pre-Determined Exclusions discussed previously with respect to the annual incentive measures, as well as the UP&O Adjustments. The payout was determined based on the achievement of the following performance goals established for both performance measures by the committee at the beginning of the performance period:

480

2018-2020 LTIP Performance Period Measures and Goals
Performance Measure(1)
LTIP
Measure Weight
Payout
Relative TSR50%
Minimum (25%) - Bottom of 3rd Quartile
Target (100%) - Median Percentile
Maximum (200%) - Top Quartile
Cumulative Adjusted UP&O EPS ($)50%Minimum (25%) - $13.68
Target (100%) - $15.20
Maximum (200%) - $16.72
(1)Payouts for performance between achievement levels are calculated using straight-line interpolation, with no payouts for performance below the minimum achievement level.

In January 2021, the Personnel Committee reviewed Entergy Corporation’s TSR and the Cumulative Adjusted UP&O EPS for the 2018 – 2020 LTIP performance period in order to determine the payout to participants based upon the performance measures and range of potential payouts for the 2018 – 2020 LTIP performance period as provided above. The committee compared Entergy Corporation’s TSR against the TSR of the companies that were included in the Philadelphia Utility Index throughout the three year performance period, which were:

AES CorporationEdison International
Ameren CorporationEversource Energy
American Electric Power Co. Inc.Exelon Corporation
American Water Works Company, Inc.FirstEnergy Corporation
CenterPoint Energy Inc.NextEra Energy, Inc.
Consolidated Edison Inc.PG&E Corporation
Dominion EnergyPublic Service Enterprise Group, Inc.
DTE Energy CompanySouthern Company
Duke Energy CorporationXcel Energy, Inc.

As recommended by the Finance Committee, the Personnel Committee concluded that Entergy Corporation’s relative TSR for the 2018 – 2020 performance period was in the second quartile, and that Cumulative Adjusted UP&O EPS was $15.25, yielding a payout of 126% of target for the NEOs.

Named Executive Officer2018-2020 Target
Number of Shares Issued(1)
Value of Shares Actually Issued(2)
Grant Date Fair Value(3)
A. Christopher Bakken, III7,90011,048$1,050,886$651,079
Marcus V. Brown7,90011,048$1,050,886$651,079
Leo P. Denault42,70059,718$5,680,376$3,519,121
David D. Ellis(4)
1,1001,488$141,539$90,657
Haley R. Fisackerly1,6502,307$219,442$135,985
Laura R. Landreaux(5)
1,3751,892$179,967$113,321
Andrew S. Marsh7,90011,048$1,050,886$651,079
Phillip R. May, Jr.2,5503,566$339,198$210,158
Sallie T. Rainer1,6502,307$219,442$135,985
Roderick K. West7,90011,048$1,050,886$651,079
(1)Includes accrued dividends.
(2)Value determined based on the closing price of Entergy Corporation common stock on January 19, 2021 ($95.12), the date the Personnel Committee certified the 2018-2020 performance period results.
(3)Represents the aggregate grant date fair value calculated in accordance with applicable accounting rules as reflected in the 2018 Summary Compensation Table.
481

(4)As a new hire in 2018, Mr. Ellis received a pro-rata target award opportunity for the 2018 - 2020 performance period.
(5)As a new officer in 2018, Ms. Landreaux received a pro-rata target award opportunity for the 2018 - 2020 performance period.

Benefits and Perquisites


Entergy Corporation’s Named Executive OfficersNEOs are eligible to participate in or receive the following benefits:
Plan TypeDescription
Retirement Plans
Entergy Corporation-sponsored:


Entergy Retirement Plan - a tax-qualified final average pay defined benefit pension plan that covers a broad group of employees hired before July 1, 2014.
Cash Balance Plan - a tax-qualified cash balance defined benefit pension plan that covers a broad group of employees hired on or after July 1, 2014.2014 and before January 1, 2021.
Pension Equalization Plan - a non-qualified pension restoration plan for a select group of management or highly compensated employees who participate in the Entergy Retirement Plan.
Cash Balance Equalization Plan - a non-qualified restoration plan for a select group of management or highly compensated employees who participate in the Cash Balance Plan.
System Executive Retirement Plan - a non-qualified supplemental retirement plan for individuals who became executive officers before July 1, 2014.

See the 2017 Pension Benefits Table for additional information regarding the operation of the plans described above.
Savings PlanEntergy Corporation-sponsored 401(k) Savings Plan that covers a broad group of employees.
Health & Welfare Benefits
Medical, dental and vision coverage, health care and dependent care reimbursement plans, life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance, business travel accident insurance, and long-term disability insurance.



Eligibility, coverage levels, potential employee contributions, and other plan design features are the same for the Named Executive OfficersNEOs as for the broad employee population.
20172020 PerquisitesCorporate aircraft usage and annual mandatory physical exams, relocation assistance, and event tickets.exams. The OfficeNEOs who are members of the Chief Executive membersOCE do not receive tax gross ups on any benefits, except for relocation assistance.

Named Executive Officers

In 2020, the NEOs
who are not members of the Office of the Chief ExecutiveOCE also were provided in 20172020 with club dues and tax gross up payments on some perquisites.

this perquisite.

For additional information regarding perquisites, see the “All Other Compensation” column in the 20172020 Summary Compensation Table.
Deferred CompensationThe Named Executive OfficersNEOs are eligible to defer up to 100% of their base salary and Annual Incentive Planannual incentive awards into anthe Entergy Corporation-sponsoredCorporation sponsored Executive Deferred Compensation Plan.
Executive Disability PlanEligible individuals who become disabled under the terms of the plan are eligible for 65% of the difference between their annual base salary and $276,923 (i.e. the annual base salary that produces the maximum $15,000 monthly disability payment under the general long-term disability plan).


Entergy Corporation provides these benefits to its Named Executive Officersthe NEOs as part of providingits effort to provide a competitive executive compensation program and because it believes that these benefits are important retention and recruitment tools since many of the companies with which it competes for executive talent provide similar arrangements to their senior executive officers.

482


CompensationSeverance and Retention Arrangements


The Personnel Committee believes that retention and transitional compensation arrangements are an important part of overall compensation. The Committee believes that these arrangementscompensation as they help to secure the continued employment and dedication of the Named Executive Officers,NEOs, notwithstanding any concern that they might have at the time of a change in control regarding their own continued employment. In addition, the Personnel Committee believes that these arrangements are important as recruitment and retention devices, as many of the companies with which Entergy Corporation competes for executive talent have similar arrangements in place for their senior employees.


To achieve these objectives, Entergy Corporation has established a System Executive Continuity Plan under which each of the Named ExecutiveML 1-4 Officers isare entitled to receive “change in control” payments and benefits if such officer’s employment is involuntarily terminated without cause or if the officer resigns for good reason, in each case, in connection with a change in control of Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries. Severance payments under the System Executive Continuity Plan generally are based on a multiple of the sum of an executive officer’s annual base salary plus his or her average Annual Incentive Plan award for the two calendar years immediately preceding the calendar year in which the termination of employment occurs. Under Entergy Corporation’s policy, under no circumstances can this multiple exceed 2.99 times the sum of the executive officer’s annual base salary and his or her annual incentive, calculated in accordance with this policy. Entergy Corporation strives to ensure that the benefits and payment levels under the System Executive Continuity Plan are consistent with market practices. Entergy Corporation’s executive officers, including the Named Executive Officers, willNEOs, are not receiveentitled to any tax gross up payments on any severance benefits received under this plan. For more information regarding the System Executive Continuity Plan, see “2017“2020 Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control-System Executive Continuity Plan.Control.


In certain cases,Nuclear Retention Plan

Mr. Bakken participates in the Committee may approve the execution ofNuclear Retention Plan, a retention agreementplan for officers and other leaders with an individual executive officer. These decisions are made on a case by case basis to reflect specific retention needs or other factors, including market practice. If a retention agreement is entered into with an individual officer, the Committee considers the economic value associated with that agreement in making overall compensation decisions for that officer. Entergy Corporation has voluntarily adopted a policy that any employment or severance agreements providing severance benefits in excess of 2.99 times the sum of an officer’s annual base salary and annual incentive award (other than the value of the vesting or payment of an outstanding equity-based award or the pro rata vesting or payment of an outstanding long-term incentive award) must be approved by Entergy Corporation’s shareholders.

Entergy Corporation currently has a retention agreement with Mr. Denault. In general, Mr. Denault’s retention agreement provides for certain payments and benefitsexpertise in the event of his termination of employment by his Entergy employer other than for cause, by Mr. Denault for good reason or on account of his death or disability. See “2017 Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control - Mr. Denault’s 2006 Retention Agreement.” Because Mr. Denault has reached age 55, certain severance payment provisions in his retention agreement no longer apply. Mr. Denault will not receive tax gross up payments on any payments or benefits he may receive under his agreement. Mr. Denault’s retention agreement was entered into in 2006 when he was Entergy Corporation’s Chief Financial Officernuclear industry. The Personnel Committee authorized this plan to attract and was designed to reflect the competition for chief financial officerretain key management and employee talent in the marketplace atnuclear power field, a field that timerequires unique technical and other expertise that is in great demand in the Committee’s assessmentutility industry. The plan provides for bonuses to be paid annually over a three-year service period with the bonus opportunity dependent on the participant’s management level and continued employment. Each annual payment is equal to an amount ranging from 15% to 30% of the critical role this position playedemployee’s base salary as of their date of enrollment in executingthe plan.

In recognition of the value Entergy Corporation’s long-term financialCorporation places on Mr. Bakken as a member of its senior management team and other strategic objectives. Basedhis extensive experience in the nuclear industry, and to keep his pay competitive, in May 2019, Mr. Bakken’s participation in the plan was renewed for another three-year period beginning on May 1, 2019. In accordance with the market data provided by its former independent compensation consultant,terms and conditions of the Committee, atNuclear Retention Plan, in May 2020 Mr. Bakken received, and in May 2021 and 2022, Mr. Bakken will receive a cash bonus equal to 30% of $654,078, his base salary as of May 1, 2019. The three-year period covered and percentage of base salary paid to Mr. Bakken under the time the agreement was entered into, believed the benefits and payment levels under Mr. Denault’s retention agreement wereplan are consistent with market practices.the terms of participation of other senior executive officers who participate in this plan.



Compensation PoliciesRisk Mitigation and Other Pay Practices


Entergy Corporation strives to ensure that its compensation philosophy and practices are in line with the best practices of companies in its industry as well as other companies in the S&P 500. Some of these practices include the following:


Clawback Provisions


Entergy Corporation has adopted a clawback policy that covers all individuals subject to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act, of 1934 (the Exchange Act), including the membersall of the Office of the Chief Executive.NEOs. Under the policy, which goes beyond the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley), the Committee will require reimbursement of incentives paid to thesecovered executive officers are required to be reimbursed where:


(i) the payment was predicated upon the achievement of certain financial results with respect to the applicable performance period that were subsequently determined to be the subject of a material restatement other than a restatement due to changes in accounting policy; or (ii) a material miscalculation of a performance award occurs, whether or not the financial statements were restated and, in either such case, a lower payment would have been made to the executive officer based upon the restated financial results or correct calculation; or
483

in the Board of Directors’ view, the executive officer engaged in fraud that caused or partially caused the need for a restatement or caused a material miscalculation of a performance award, in each case, whether or not the financial statements were restated.


The amount the Committee requiresrequired to be reimbursed is equal to the excess of the gross incentive payment made over the gross payment that would have been made if the original payment had been determined based on the restated financial results or correct calculation. Further, following a material restatement ofIn addition, Entergy Corporation’s financial statements, itCorporation will seek to recover any compensation received by its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer that is required to be reimbursed under Sarbanes-Oxley.Sarbanes-Oxley following a material restatement of Entergy Corporation’s financial statements.


Stock Ownership Guidelines and Share Retention Requirements


For many years, Entergy Corporation has had stock ownership guidelines for executives, including the Named Executive Officers.NEOs. These guidelines are designed to align the executives’ long-term financial interests with thosethe interests of Entergy Corporation’s shareholders. Annually, the Personnel Committee monitors the executive officers’ compliance with these guidelines.

Entergy Corporation’sguidelines with all of the NEOs satisfying the applicable ownership guidelines at that time. The ownership guidelines are as follows:


The ownership guidelines are as follows:
RoleValue of Common Stock to be Owned
Chief Executive Officer (ML-1)6 timesx base salary
Executive Vice Presidents (ML-2)3 timesx base salary
Senior Vice Presidents (ML-3)2 timesx base salary
Vice Presidents (ML-4)1 timex base salary


Further, to ensurefacilitate compliance with the guidelines, until an executive officer satisfies the stock ownership guidelines, the officer must retain:


all net after-tax shares paid out under the Long-Term Performance Unit Program;LTIP;
all net after-tax shares of the restricted stock and restricted stock units received upon vesting; and
at least 75% of the after-tax net shares received upon the exercise of Entergy Corporation stock options, except for stock options granted before January 1, 2014, as to which the executive officer must retain at least 75% of the after-tax net shares until the earlier of achievement of the stock ownership guidelines or five years from the date of exercise.options.


Trading Controls and Anti-Pledging and Anti-Hedging Policies


Executive officers, including the Named Executive Officers,NEOs, are required to receive the permission offrom Entergy Corporation’s General Counsel or his designee prior to entering into any transaction involving Entergy Corporation securities, including gifts, other than the exercise of employee stock options. Trading is generally permitted only during specified open trading windows beginning immediately followingshortly after the release of earnings. Employees, who are subject to trading restrictions, including the Named Executive Officers,NEOs, may enter into trading plans under Rule 10b5-1 of the Exchange Act, but these trading plans may be entered into only during an open trading window and must be approved by Entergy Corporation. The Named Executive OfficerA NEO bears full responsibility if he or she violates theEntergy Corporation’s policy by permittingbuying or selling shares to be bought or soldof Entergy Corporation stock without pre-approval or when trading is restricted.


Entergy Corporation also prohibits its directors and executive officers, including the Named Executive Officers,NEOs, from pledging any Entergy Corporation securities or entering into margin accounts involving Entergy Corporation securities. TheseEntergy Corporation prohibits these transactions are prohibited because of the potential that sales of Entergy Corporation securities could occur outside trading periods and without the required approval of the General Counsel.


Entergy Corporation also has also adopted an anti-hedging policy that prohibits officers, directors, and employees from entering into hedging or monetization transactions involving Entergy CorporationCorporation’s common stock. Prohibited transactions include, without limitation, zero-cost collars, forward sale contracts, purchase or sale of options, puts, calls, straddles or equity swaps or other derivatives that are directly linked to Entergy Corporation’s common stock or transactions involving “short-sales” of Entergy Corporation’sits common stock. The Board adopted this policy to require officers, directors, and employees to continue to own Entergy Corporation’s common stock with the full risks and rewards
484


How Entergy Corporation Makes Compensation Decisions

Role of the Personnel Committee

The Personnel Committee has overall responsibility for approving the compensation program for the Named Executive Officers and makes all final compensation decisions regarding Entergy Corporation’s Named Executive Officers. The Committee works with Entergy Corporation’s executive management to ensure that the compensation policies and practices are consistent with its values and support the successful recruitment, development, and retention of executive talent so that Entergy Corporation can achieve its business objectives and optimize its long-term financial returns. Annually, management presents the Personnel Committee with the proposed compensation model for the following year, including the compensation elements, mix of elements, and measures for each element, and consults with Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer on recommended compensation for senior executives. The Committee evaluates executive pay each year to ensure that Entergy Corporation’s compensation policies and practices are consistent with its philosophy. The Personnel Committee is responsible for, among its other duties, the following actions related to the Named Executive Officers:

developing and implementing compensation policies and programs for hiring, evaluating, and setting compensation for executive officers, including any employment agreement with an executive officer;
evaluating the performance of Entergy Corporation’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; and
reporting, at least annually, to the Board on succession planning, including succession planning for the Chief Executive Officer.

Role of the Chief Executive Officer

The Personnel Committee solicits recommendations from Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer with respect to compensation decisions for the other Named Executive Officers who are members of Entergy Corporation’s Office of the Chief Executive. Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer provides the Personnel Committee with an assessment of the performance of each of these Named Executive Officers and recommends compensation levels to be awarded to each of them. In addition, the Committee may request that the Chief Executive

Officer provide management feedback and recommendations on changes in the design of compensation programs, such as special retention plans or changes in incentive program structure. However, the Chief Executive Officer does not play any role with respect to any matter affecting his own compensation, nor does he have any role determining or recommending the amount or form of director compensation. The Personnel Committee also relies on the recommendations of Entergy Corporation’s Senior Vice President, Human Resources with respect to compensation decisions, policies, and practices.

The Chief Executive Officer may attend meetings of the Personnel Committee only at the invitation of the chair of the Personnel Committee and cannot call a meeting of the Committee. Since he is not a member of the Committee, he has no vote on matters submitted to the Committee. During 2017, Mr. Denault attended 9 meetings of the Personnel Committee.

Role of the Compensation Consultant

Entergy Corporation’s Personnel Committee has the sole authority for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of its outside compensation consultant. The Committee conducts an annual review of the compensation consultant, and in 2017, it retained Pay Governance LLC as its independent compensation consultant to assist it in, among other things, evaluating different compensation programs and developing market data to assess Entergy Corporation’s compensation programs. Also in 2017, the Corporate Governance Committee retained Pay Governance to review and perform a competitive analysis of non-employee director compensation.

During 2017, Pay Governance assisted the Committee with its responsibilities related to Entergy Corporation’s compensation programs for its executives. The Committee directed Pay Governance to: (i) regularly attend meetings of the Committee; (ii) conduct studies of competitive compensation practices; (iii) identify Entergy Corporation’s market surveys and proxy peer group; (iv) review base salary, annual incentives, and long-term incentive compensation opportunities relative to competitive practices; and (v) develop conclusions and recommendations related to the executive compensation programs for consideration by the Committee. A senior consultant from Pay Governance attended all Personnel Committee meetings to which he was invited in 2017.

Compensation Consultant Independence


To maintainAnnually, the Personnel Committee reviews the relationship with its compensation consultant to determine whether any conflicts of interest exist that would prevent Pay Governance from independently advising the Personnel Committee. Factors considered by the committee when assessing the independence of its compensation consultant included, among others:

Pay Governance has policies in place to prevent conflicts of interest;
No member of Pay Governance’s consulting team serving the committee has a business relationship with any member of the committee or any of Entergy Corporation’s executive officers;
Neither Pay Governance nor any of its principals own any shares of Entergy Corporation’s common stock; and
The amount of fees paid to Pay Governance is less than 1% of Pay Governance’s total consulting income.

Based on these factors, the Personnel Committee’s compensation consultant,Committee concluded that Pay Governance is independent in accordance with SEC and NYSE rules and that no conflicts of interest exist that would prevent Pay Governance from independently advising the committee.

In addition, Pay Governance has agreed that it will not accept any engagement with management without prior approval from the Personnel Committee, and Entergy Corporation’s Board has adopted a policy that anyprohibits a compensation consultant (including its affiliates) retained by the Board of Directors or any Committee of the Board of Directors to provide advice or recommendations on the amount or form of executive or director compensation should not be retained by Entergy Corporation or any of its affiliates to providefrom providing other services in anto it if the aggregate amount that exceedsfor those services would exceed $120,000 in any year. In 2017, the Personnel Committee’s independent compensation consultant,During 2020, Pay Governance did not provide any services to Entergy Corporation other than itsthe services toit performed on behalf of the Personnel Committee and the Corporate Governance Committee in connectionCommittees, and it worked with Entergy Corporation’s non-employee director compensation program. Annually, the Committee reviews the relationship with its compensation consultant, including services provided, quality of those services, and fees associated with services in its evaluation of the executive compensation consultant’s independence. The Committee also assesses Pay Governance’s independence under NYSE rules and has concluded that no conflict of interests exists that would prevent Pay Governance from independently advising the Personnel Committee.

Tax and Accounting Considerations

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) limits the tax deductibility by a publicly-held corporation of compensation in excess of $1 million paid to the Chief Executive Officer and any of its other Section 162(m) covered employees. Historically, an exception was provided for compensation that was “performance-based compensation” within the meaning of Section 162(m).  Effectivemanagement only as of January 1, 2018, this exception no longer applies, other than with respect to certain grandfathered arrangements. In structuring the compensation packages that are provided to the Named Executive Officers, the Personnel Committee takes into account the tax effects of Section 162(m) and considers the financial accounting consequences. However, the Personnel Committee and the Board believe that it is in the best interest of Entergy Corporation that the Personnel Committee retains the discretion

to make compensation awards, whether or not deductible. This flexibility is necessary to foster achievement of performance goals establisheddirected by the Personnel Committee, as well as other corporate goals that the Committee deems important to Entergy Corporation’s success, such as encouraging employee retention and rewarding achievement of key corporate goals.committees.



PERSONNEL COMMITTEE REPORT


The Personnel Committee Report included in the Entergy Corporation Proxy Statement is incorporated by reference, but will not be deemed to be “filed” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. None of the Registrant Subsidiaries has a compensation committee or other board committee performing equivalent functions. The board of directors of each of the Registrant Subsidiaries is comprised of individuals who are officers or employees of Entergy Corporation or one of the Registrant Subsidiaries. These boards do not make determinations regarding the compensation paid to executive officers of the Registrant Subsidiaries.



485

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES


20172020 Summary Compensation Tables


The following table summarizes the total compensation paid or earned by each of the Named Executive OfficersNEOs for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017,2020, and to the extent required by SEC executive compensation disclosure rules, the fiscal years ended December 31, 20162019 and 2015.2018.  For information on the principal positions held by each of the Named Executive Officers,NEOs, see Item 10, “Directors, and Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance of the Registrants.”  


The compensation set forth in the table represents the aggregate compensation paid by all Entergy System companies.  For additional information regarding the material terms of the awards reported in the following tables, including a general description of the formula or criteria to be applied in determining the amounts payable, see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name and Principal Position
(1)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Salary
(2)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bonus
(3)
 
 
 
 
 
Stock
Awards
 (4)
 
 
 
 
 
Option
Awards
 (5)
 
 
 
Non-Equity
Incentive
Plan
Compen-sation
(6)
Change in
Pension
Value and
Non-qualified
Deferred
Compen-sation
Earnings
 (7)
 
 
 
 
All
Other
Compen-sation 
 (8)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total
 
Total Without Change in Pension Value
(9)
A. Christopher Bakken, III2020$693,819 $196,223 $1,666,710 $335,245 $581,066 $115,100 $85,846 $3,674,009 $3,558,909 
Executive Vice President and2019$649,507 $181,500 $1,273,399 $303,023 $618,104 $98,500 $62,407 $3,186,440 $3,087,940 
Chief Nuclear Officer of Entergy Corp.2018$632,967 $181,500 $1,041,479 $283,095 $544,959 $108,700 $452,012 $3,244,712 $3,136,012 
Marcus V. Brown2020$709,688 $— $1,626,512 $327,172 $662,400 $1,746,000 $78,631 $5,150,403 $3,404,403 
Executive Vice President and2019$661,563 $— $1,248,839 $297,182 $684,573 $1,455,300 $69,955 $4,417,412 $2,962,112 
General Counsel of Entergy Corp.2018$644,231 $— $1,041,479 $283,095 $546,000 $371,800 $61,885 $2,948,490 $2,576,690 
Leo P. Denault2020$1,308,462 $— $6,716,017 $1,350,986 $2,116,800 $4,416,700 $289,632 $16,198,597 $11,781,897 
Chairman of the2019$1,260,000 $— $5,391,253 $1,282,994 $2,416,680 $3,704,500 $208,822 $14,264,249 $10,559,749 
Board and CEO -2018$1,251,346 $— $4,744,977 $1,168,029 $2,041,200 $982,800 $138,104 $10,326,456 $9,343,656 
Entergy Corp.
David D. Ellis2020$331,803 $— $219,889 $36,640 $164,955 $32,200 $19,323 $804,810 $772,610 
CEO - Entergy2019$311,004 $— $188,861 $39,104 $159,804 $18,000 $15,267 $732,040 $714,040 
New Orleans2018$7,258 $200,000 $— $— $— $600 $35,308 $243,166 $242,566 
Haley R. Fisackerly2020$384,848 $— $252,819 $49,235 $232,737 $836,200 $48,101 $1,803,940 $967,740 
CEO - Entergy2019$373,313 $— $197,780 $51,584 $274,570 $644,700 $37,897 $1,579,844 $935,144 
Mississippi2018$363,089 $— $198,449 $46,134 $172,000 $— $35,982 $815,654 $815,654 
Laura R. Landreaux2020$323,907 $— $252,819 $49,235 $167,153 $330,700 $26,698 $1,150,512 $819,812 
CEO - Entergy2019$314,407 $— $188,861 $42,432 $263,523 $228,700 $26,536 $1,064,459 $835,759 
Arkansas2018$246,136 $— $273,062 $— $124,000 $21,500 $10,741 $675,439 $653,939 

486

(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
Name and Principal Position
(1)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Salary
(2)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bonus
(3)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stock
Awards
 (4)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Option
Awards
 (5)
 
 
 
 
Non-Equity
Incentive
Plan
Compen-sation
(6)
 
Change in
Pension
Value and
Non-qualified
Deferred
Compen-sation
Earnings
 (7)
 
 
 
 
 
All
Other
Compens-ation
 
 (8)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total
 
Name and Principal Position
(1)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Salary
(2)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bonus
(3)
 
 
 
 
 
Stock
Awards
 (4)
 
 
 
 
 
Option
Awards
 (5)
 
 
 
Non-Equity
Incentive
Plan
Compen-sation
(6)
Change in
Pension
Value and
Non-qualified
Deferred
Compen-sation
Earnings
 (7)
 
 
 
 
All
Other
Compen-sation 
 (8)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total
 
Total Without Change in Pension Value
(9)
A. Christopher Bakken, III 2017 
$615,791
 
$181,500
 
$959,376
 
$245,904
 
$559,973
 
$33,000
 
$114,494
 
$2,710,038
Chief Nuclear Officer of Entergy Corp. 2016 
$426,990
 
$650,000
 
$3,292,700
 
$—
 
$529,375
 
$27,900
 
$140,601
 
$5,067,566
                
Marcus V. Brown 2017 
$622,788
 
$—
 
$1,022,853
 
$287,760
 
$568,890
 
$1,217,200
 
$43,269
 
$3,762,760
General Counsel of Entergy Corp. 2016 
$563,208
 
$—
 
$1,144,648
 
$333,000
 
$550,550
 
$934,600
 
$34,381
 
$3,560,387
                
Leo P. Denault 2017 
$1,221,346
 
$—
 
$4,676,190
 
$1,173,276
 
$2,142,045
 
$3,819,500
 
$125,863
 
$13,158,220
Chairman of the 2016 
$1,191,462
 
$—
 
$4,632,276
 
$1,235,800
 
$2,154,600
 
$4,166,800
 
$97,786
 
$13,478,724
Board and CEO - 2015 
$1,153,385
 
$—
 
$4,356,362
 
$1,004,080
 
$1,681,875
 
$4,802,400
 
$88,795
 
$13,086,897
Entergy Corp.                
                
Haley R. Fisackerly 2017 
$354,451
 
$—
 
$192,041
 
$49,704
 
$169,123
 
$406,300
 
$35,724
 
$1,207,343
CEO - Entergy 2016 
$320,067
 
$—
 
$229,752
 
$49,580
 
$168,000
 
$268,600
 
$34,243
 
$1,070,242
Mississippi 2015 
$320,131
 
$—
 
$219,994
 
$51,345
 
$190,000
 
$102,300
 
$43,987
 
$927,757
               

Andrew S. Marsh 2017 
$588,291
 
$—
 
$1,022,853
 
$287,760
 
$541,800
 
$801,900
 
$51,647
 
$3,294,251
Andrew S. Marsh2020$704,692 $— $2,053,717 $413,105 $703,800 $2,054,000 $77,741 $6,007,055 $3,953,055 
Executive Vice 2016 
$553,284
 
$—
 
$1,144,648
 
$333,000
 
$509,061
 
$593,700
 
$47,484
 
$3,181,177
Executive Vice2019$641,923 $— $1,579,663 $375,914 $712,400 $1,554,300 $69,863 $4,934,063 $3,379,763 
President and CFO - 2015 
$532,245
 
$—
 
$2,600,401
 
$273,840
 
$508,308
 
$670,200
 
$39,131
 
$4,624,125
President and CFO -2018$615,654 $— $1,057,095 $342,510 $531,188 $— $57,638 $2,604,085 $2,604,085 
Entergy Corp.,                Entergy Corp.,
Entergy Arkansas, 























Entergy Arkansas,
Entergy Louisiana, 























Entergy Louisiana,
Entergy Mississippi,                Entergy Mississippi,
Entergy New                Entergy New
Orleans, Entergy               

Texas               

Orleans,Orleans,
Entergy TexasEntergy Texas
                
Phillip R. May, Jr. 2017 
$363,410
 
$—
 
$302,493
 
$68,670
 
$300,000
 
$503,400
 
$26,981
 
$1,564,954
Phillip R. May, Jr.2020$416,677 $— $371,882 $83,585 $284,881 $1,072,100 $28,836 $2,257,961 $1,185,861 
CEO - Entergy 2016 
$353,690
 
$—
 
$326,988
 
$71,040
 
$224,690
 
$600,000
 
$26,018
 
$1,602,426
CEO - Entergy2019$389,016 $— $294,183 $77,376 $407,922 $877,100 $28,297 $2,073,894 $1,196,794 
Louisiana 2015 
$344,035
 
$—
 
$279,406
 
$57,050
 
$315,000
 
$288,100
 
$25,970
 
$1,309,561
Louisiana2018$377,108 $— $288,238 $69,201 $270,000 $— $26,874 $1,031,421 $1,031,421 
Sallie T. RainerSallie T. Rainer2020$369,133 $— $252,819 $49,235 $175,713 $663,100 $33,383 $1,543,383 $880,283 
CEO - EntergyCEO - Entergy2019$344,722 $— $197,780 $51,584 $219,069 $617,200 $37,361 $1,467,716 $850,516 
TexasTexas2018$335,263 $— $198,449 $46,134 $159,000 $— $35,379 $774,225 $774,225 
Roderick K. WestRoderick K. West2020$754,742 $— $1,804,816 $363,022 $673,314 $1,976,400 $59,730 $5,632,024 $3,655,624 
Group PresidentGroup President2019$709,023 $— $1,340,679 $319,039 $674,742 $1,604,100 $67,191 $4,714,774 $3,110,674 
Utility Operations ofUtility Operations of2018$690,581 $— $1,057,095 $297,075 $560,762 $— $67,234 $2,672,747 $2,672,747 
Entergy Corp.Entergy Corp.


(1)Mr. Ellis was named Chief Executive Officer, Entergy New Orleans in December 2018, and Ms. Landreaux was named Chief Executive Officer, Entergy Arkansas in July 2018.
(2)The amounts in column (c) represent the actual base salary paid to the NEOs in the applicable year. The 2020 base salary amounts include an amount attributable to an extra pay period that occurred in 2020 as the NEOs are paid on a bi-weekly basis.  The 2020 changes in base salaries noted in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis were effective in April 2020.
(3)The amount in column (d) in 2020, 2019, and 2018 for Mr. Bakken represents the cash bonus paid to him pursuant to the Nuclear Retention Plan. See “Nuclear Retention Plan” in Compensation Discussion and Analysis. The amount in column (d) in 2018 for Mr. Ellis represents a cash sign-on bonus paid in connection with his commencement of employment with Entergy New Orleans.
(4)The amounts in column (e) represent the aggregate grant date fair value of restricted stock and performance units granted under the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “2015 EOP”) and the 2019 OIP (together with the 2015 EOP, the “Equity Plans”), each calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, without taking into account estimated forfeitures.  The grant date fair value of the restricted stock is based on the closing price of Entergy Corporation common stock on the date of grant.  The grant date fair value of the portion of the performance units with vesting based on the total shareholder return was measured using a Monte Carlo simulation valuation model.  The simulation model applies a risk-free interest rate and an expected volatility assumption.  The risk-free interest rate is assumed to equal the yield on a three-year treasury bond on the grant date.  Volatility is based on historical volatility for the 36-month period preceding the grant date.  The performance units in the table are also valued based on the probable outcome of the applicable performance condition at the time of grant. The maximum value of shares that would be received if the highest achievement level is attained with respect to both the total shareholder return and Cumulative ETR Adjusted EPS, for performance units granted in 2020 are as follows:  Mr. Bakken,
487

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name and Principal Position
(1)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Salary
(2)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bonus
(3)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stock
Awards
 (4)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Option
Awards
 (5)
 
 
 
 
Non-Equity
Incentive
Plan
Compen-sation
(6)
 
Change in
Pension
Value and
Non-qualified
Deferred
Compen-sation
Earnings
 (7)
 
 
 
 
 
All
Other
Compens-ation
 
 (8)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total
 
Sallie T. Rainer 2017 
$325,737
 
$—
 
$195,567
 
$51,012
 
$156,259
 
$435,900
 
$35,785
 
$1,200,260
CEO - Entergy 2016 
$316,003
 
$—
 
$229,752
 
$49,580
 
$153,348
 
$346,300
 
$53,797
 
$1,148,780
Texas 2015 
$304,783
 
$—
 
$211,004
 
$43,358
 
$190,000
 
$189,100
 
$41,565
 
$979,810
                   
Charles L. Rice, Jr. 2017 
$284,681
 
$—
 
$170,882
 
$25,506
 
$91,000
 
$221,200
 
$30,842
 
$824,111
CEO - Entergy New 2016 
$276,998
 
$—
 
$229,752
 
$49,580
 
$67,302
 
$177,600
 
$33,807
 
$835,039
Orleans 2015 
$266,752
 
$—
 
$211,004
 
$51,345
 
$173,000
 
$104,500
 
$33,416
 
$840,017
                   
Richard C. Riley 2017 
$341,723
 
$—
 
$202,620
 
$52,320
 
$280,661
 
$437,700
 
$38,695
 
$1,353,719
CEO - Entergy 2016 
$325,020
 
$—
 
$226,224
 
$34,780
 
$167,500
 
$277,900
 
$102,112
 
$1,133,536
Arkansas                  
                   
Roderick K. West 2017 
$670,876
 
$—
 
$818,316
 
$190,968
 
$610,065
 
$867,200
 
$52,220
 
$3,209,645
Group President 2016 
$654,514
 
$—
 
$1,116,424
 
$303,400
 
$461,384
 
$601,000
 
$73,706
 
$3,210,428
Utility Operations of 2015 
$638,876
 
$—
 
$1,071,111
 
$262,430
 
$607,677
 
$543,900
 
$71,790
 
$3,195,784
Entergy Corp.                  
$2,043,768; Mr. Brown, $1,994,504; Mr. Denault, $8,235,925; Mr. Ellis, $250,268; Mr. Fisackerly, $250,268; Ms. Landreaux $250,268; Mr. Marsh, $2,518,486; Mr. May, $368,816; Ms. Rainer, $250,268; and Mr. West, $2,213,159.

(5)The amounts in column (f) represent the aggregate grant date fair value of stock options granted under the Equity Plans calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718.  For a discussion of the relevant assumptions used in valuing these awards, see Note 12 to the financial statements.
(1)Mr. Bakken was named Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer in April 2016. Mr. Brown was not a Named Executive Officer in 2015. Mr. Riley was named Chief Executive Officer, Entergy Arkansas in May 2016.
(2)The amounts in column (c) represent the actual base salary paid to the Named Executive Officers.  The 2017 changes in base salaries noted in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis were effective in April 2017.
(3)The amount in column (d) in 2017 for Mr. Bakken represents the cash bonus paid to him pursuant to the Nuclear Retention Plan. See “Nuclear Retention Plan” in Compensation Discussion and Analysis. The amount in column (d) in 2016 represents a cash sign-on bonus paid to Mr. Bakken in connection with his commencement of employment with Entergy Corporation.
(4)The amounts in column (e) represent the aggregate grant date fair value of restricted stock, performance units, and restricted stock units granted under the Equity Ownership Plans, each calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, without taking into account estimated forfeitures.  The grant date fair value of the restricted stock and restricted stock units is based on the closing price of Entergy Corporation common stock on the date of grant.  The grant date fair value of performance units is based on the probable outcome of the applicable performance conditions, measured using a Monte Carlo simulation valuation model.  The simulation model applies a risk-free interest rate and an expected volatility assumption.  The risk-free interest rate is assumed to equal the yield on a three-year treasury bond on the grant date.  Volatility is based on historical volatility for the 36-month period preceding the grant date.  If the highest achievement level is attained, the maximum amounts that will be received with respect to the performance units granted in 2017 are as follows:  Mr. Bakken, $1,170,798; Mr. Brown, $1,170,798; Mr. Denault, $6,869,622; Mr. Fisackerly, $260,961; Mr. Marsh, $1,170,798; Mr. May, $444,339; Ms. Rainer, $260,961; Mr. Rice, $260,961; Mr. Riley, $260,961; and Mr. West, $1,170,798. The amount in 2016 for Mr. Bakken includes restricted stock units granted to him in connection with his commencement of employment as Chief Nuclear Officer.
(5)The amounts in column (f) represent the aggregate grant date fair value of stock options granted under the Equity Ownership Plans calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718.  For a discussion of the relevant assumptions used in valuing these awards, see Note 12 to the financial statements.
(6)The amounts in column (g) represent cash payments made under the Annual Incentive Plan.

(6)The amounts in column (g) represent annual incentive award cash payments made under the 2019 OIP.
(7)For all Named Executive Officers, the amounts in column (h) include the annual actuarial increase in the present value of these Named Executive Officers’ benefits under all pension plans established by Entergy Corporation using interest rate and mortality rate assumptions consistent with those used in Entergy Corporation’s financial statements and include amounts which the Named Executive Officers may not currently be entitled to receive because such amounts are not vested (see “2017 Pension Benefits”).  None of the increases for any of the Named Executive Officers is attributable to above-market or preferential earnings on non-qualified deferred compensation (see “2017 Non-qualified Deferred Compensation”).
(8)The amounts in column (i) for 2017 include (a) matching contributions by Entergy Corporation under the Savings Plan to each of the Named Executive Officers; (b) dividends paid on restricted stock when vested; (c) life insurance premiums; (d) tax gross up payments on club dues and relocation expenses; and (e) perquisites and other compensation.  The amounts are listed in the following table:
(7)For all NEOs, the amounts in column (h) include the annual actuarial increase in the present value of these NEOs’ benefits under all pension plans established by Entergy Corporation using interest rate and mortality rate assumptions consistent with those used in Entergy Corporation’s financial statements and include amounts which the NEOs may not currently be entitled to receive because such amounts are not vested (see “2020 Pension Benefits”). The increase in pension benefits for all of the NEOs in 2020 was driven by a decline in the discount rate that was a result of the decrease in prevailing interest rates. None of the increases for any of the NEOs is attributable to above-market or preferential earnings on non-qualified deferred compensation. For 2018, the aggregate change in the actuarial present value was a decrease of pension benefits of $52,000 for Mr. Fisackerly, $163,000 for Mr. Marsh, $700 for Mr. May, $110,700 for Ms. Rainer, and $149,300 for Mr. West.
(8)The amounts in column (i) for 2020 include (a) matching contributions by Entergy Corporation under the Savings Plan to each of the NEOs; (b) dividends paid on restricted stock when vested; (c) life insurance premiums; (d) tax gross up payments on club dues; and (e) perquisites and other compensation as described further below.  The amounts are listed in the following table:

Named Executive OfficerCompany Contribution – Savings PlanDividends Paid on Restricted StockLife Insurance PremiumTax Gross Up PaymentsPerquisites and Other Compensation
 
 
Total
A. Christopher Bakken, III$17,100 $52,032 $12,415 $— $4,299 $85,846 
Marcus V. Brown$11,970 $56,953 $7,482 $— $2,226 $78,631 
Leo P. Denault$11,970 $173,952 $11,484 $— $92,226 $289,632 
David D. Ellis$17,100 $658 $745 $— $820 $19,323 
Haley R. Fisackerly$11,970 $8,305 $5,705 $7,939 $14,182 $48,101 
Laura R. Landreaux$— $13,094 $493 $4,281 $8,829 $26,697 
Andrew S. Marsh$11,970 $59,177 $6,594 $— $— $77,741 
Phillip R. May, Jr.$11,970 $10,902 $5,964 $— $— $28,836 
Sallie T. Rainer$11,970 $8,564 $1,580 $2,836 $8,433 $33,383 
Roderick K. West$11,970 $41,931 $4,002 $— $1,827 $59,730 

(9)In order to show the effect that the year-over-year change in pension value had on total compensation, as determined under applicable SEC rules, we have included an additional column to show total compensation minus the change in pension value. The amounts reported in the Total Without Change in Pension Value column may differ substantially from the amounts reported in the Total column required under SEC rules and are not a substitute for total compensation. Total Without Change in Pension Value represents total compensation, as determined under applicable SEC rules, minus the change in pension value reported in the Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings column. The change in pension value is subject to many external variables, such as interest rates, assumptions about life expectancy and changes in the discount rate determined at each year end, which are functions of economic factors and actuarial calculations that are not related to Entergy Corporation’s performance and are outside of the control of the Personnel Committee.

488

Named Executive OfficerCompany Contribution – Savings PlanDividends Paid on Restricted StockLife Insurance PremiumTax Gross Up PaymentsPerquisites and Other Compensation
 
 
Total
A. Christopher Bakken, III
$16,200

$—

$11,887

$1,299

$85,108

$114,494
Marcus V. Brown
$—

$35,517

$7,482

$—

$270

$43,269
Leo P. Denault
$11,340

$93,206

$7,482

$—

$13,835

$125,863
Haley R. Fisackerly
$11,340

$7,907

$2,306

$4,082

$10,089

$35,724
Andrew S. Marsh
$11,139

$35,517

$4,991

$—

$—

$51,647
Phillip R. May, Jr.
$11,340

$9,673

$5,279

$—

$689

$26,981
Sallie T. Rainer
$11,340

$7,696

$6,477

$2,952

$7,320

$35,785
Charles L. Rice, Jr.
$11,340

$6,849

$4,874

$2,637

$5,142

$30,842
Richard C. Riley
$11,340

$8,756

$5,040

$4,832

$8,727

$38,695
Roderick K. West
$11,340

$38,270

$2,610

$—

$—

$52,220

Perquisites and Other Compensation


The amounts set forth in column (i) also include perquisites and other personal benefits that Entergy Corporation provides to its Named Executive OfficersNEOs as part of providing a competitive executive compensation program and for employee retention. The following perquisites were provided to the Named Executive OfficersNEOs in 2017.2020.

Named Executive OfficerRelocationPersonal Use of Corporate AircraftClub DuesExecutive Physical ExamsEvent Tickets
A. Christopher Bakken, IIIXXX
Marcus V. BrownXXX
Leo P. DenaultXXX
David D. EllisX
Haley R. FisackerlyXXX
Laura R. LandreauxX
Andrew S. MarshX
Phillip R. May, Jr.X
Sallie T. RainerXX
Charles L. Rice, Jr.X
Richard C. RileyX
Roderick K. WestX


For security and business reasons, Entergy Corporation permits itsCorporation’s Chief Executive Officer is permitted to use its corporate aircraft for personal use at the expense of Entergy Corporation.  The other Named Executive OfficersNEOs may use the corporate aircraft for personal travel subject to the approval of Entergy Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer.  The Personnel

Committee reviews the level of usage throughout the year. Entergy Corporation believes that its officers’ ability to use its plane for limited personal use saves time and provides additional security for them, thereby benefiting Entergy Corporation. The amounts included in column (i) for the personal use of corporate aircraft, reflect the incremental cost to Entergy Corporation for use of the corporate aircraft, determined on the basis of the variable operational costs of each flight, including fuel, maintenance, flight crew travel expense, catering, communications, and fees, including flight planning, ground handling, and landing permits. The aggregate incremental aircraft usage cost associated with Mr. Denault’s personal use of the corporate aircraft was $86,618 for fiscal year 2020. In addition, Entergy Corporation offers its executives comprehensive annual physical exams at Entergy Corporation’s expense. Tickets to cultural and sporting events are purchased for business purposes, and if not utilized for business purposes, the tickets are made available to the employees, including the Named Executive Officers, for personal use.

Entergy Corporation also provides relocation benefits to a broad base of employees which include assistance with moving expenses, purchase and sale of homes, and transportation of household goods. In connection with his employment, and in accordance with its relocation policies and pursuant to certain additional relocation benefits including the purchase of his home, Entergy Corporation paid $77,897 in relocation expenses for Mr. Bakken in 2017. The relocation assistance amounts reported above represent the amounts paid to Entergy Corporation’s relocation service provider or Mr. Bakken, as applicable.

None of the other perquisites referenced above exceeded $25,000 for any of the other Named Executive Officers.NEOs.

2017
489

2020 Grants of Plan-Based Awards


The following table summarizes award grants during 20172020 to the Named Executive Officers.NEOs.
  
Estimated Possible Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards (1)
Estimated Future Payouts under Equity Incentive Plan Awards (2)
    
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l)
NameGrant DateThresh-oldTargetMaximumThresh-oldTargetMaximumAll Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or UnitsAll Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Under-lying OptionsExercise or Base Price of Option AwardsGrant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards
($)($)($)(#)(#)(#)
(#)
(3)
(#)
(4)
($/Sh)
($)
(5)
A. Christopher1/30/20$-$505,275$1,010,550
Bakken, III1/30/201,940 7,758 15,516 $1,257,851
1/30/203,104 $408,859
1/30/2029,279 $131.72$335,245
Marcus V.1/30/20$-$552,000$1,104,000
Brown1/30/201,893 7,571 15,142 $1,227,532
1/30/203,029 $398,980
1/30/2028,574 $131.72$327,172
Leo P.1/30/20$-$1,764,000$3,528,000
Denault1/30/20   7,816 31,263 62,526    $5,068,858
1/30/2012,505 $1,647,159
1/30/20117,990 $131.72$1,350,986
David D.1/30/20$-$128,740$257,480
Ellis1/30/20238 950 1,900 $154,029
500$65,860
3,200 $131.72$36,640
Haley R.1/30/20$-$155,297$310,594       
Fisackerly1/30/20   238 950 1,900    $154,029
 1/30/20      750   $98,790
 1/30/20       4,300 $131.72$49,235
Laura R.1/30/20$-$130,702$261,404
Landreaux1/30/20238 950 1,900 $154,029
1/30/20750 $98,790
4,300 $131.72$49,235
Andrew S.1/30/20$-$586,500$1,173,000
Marsh1/30/202,390 9,560 19,120 $1,550,020
1/30/203,824 $503,697
1/30/2036,079 $131.72$413,105

490

    
Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards (1)
 
Estimated Future Payouts under Equity Incentive Plan Awards (2)
        
(a) (b) (c)(d)(e) (f)(g)(h) (i) (j) (k) (l)
Name Grant Date Thresh-oldTargetMaximum Thresh-oldTargetMaximum All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Under-lying Options Exercise or Base Price of Option Awards Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards
    ($)($)($) (#)(#)(#) 
(#)
(3)
 
(#)
(4)
 ($/Sh) 
($)
(5)
A. Christopher 1/26/17 $-$434,088$868,175            
Bakken, III 1/26/17     2,075
8,300
16,600
       $592,620
  1/26/17     

 

 5,200
     $366,756
  1/26/17           37,600
 $70.53 $245,904
                   
Marcus V. 1/26/17 $-$441,000$882,000            
Brown 1/26/17     2,075
8,300
16,600
       $592,620
  1/26/17         6,100
     $430,233
  1/26/17           44,000
 $70.53 $287,760
                   
Leo P. 1/26/17 $-$1,660,500$3,321,000            
Denault 1/26/17     12,175
48,700
97,400
       $3,477,180
  1/26/17         17,000
     $1,199,010
  1/26/17           179,400
 $70.53 $1,173,276
  
Estimated Possible Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards (1)
Estimated Future Payouts under Equity Incentive Plan Awards (2)
    
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l)
NameGrant DateThresh-oldTargetMaximumThresh-oldTargetMaximumAll Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or UnitsAll Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Under-lying OptionsExercise or Base Price of Option AwardsGrant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards
($)($)($)(#)(#)(#)
(#)
(3)
(#)
(4)
($/Sh)
($)
(5)
Phillip R.1/30/20$-$242,870$485,740       
May, Jr.1/30/20   350 1,400 2,800    $226,990
1/30/201,100 $144,892
1/30/207,300 $131.72$85,585
Sallie T.1/30/20$-$143,485$286,970       
Rainer1/30/20  238 950 1,900    $154,029
 1/30/20     750   $98,790
1/30/204,300 $131.72$49,235
 
Roderick K.1/30/20$-$585,490$1,170,980       
West1/30/20   2,100 8,401 16,802    $1,362,105
 1/30/20      3,361   $442,711
1/30/2031,705 $131.72$363,022



(1)The amounts in columns (c), (d), and (e) represent minimum, target, and maximum payment levels under the annual incentive program.  The actual amounts awarded are reported in column (g) of the Summary Compensation Table.

(2)The amounts in columns (f), (g), and (h) represent the minimum, target, and maximum payment levels under the LTIP.  Performance under the program is measured by Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return relative to the total shareholder returns of the companies included in the Philadelphia Utility Index and Cumulative Entergy Adjusted EPS with total shareholder return weighted eighty percent and Cumulative Entergy Adjusted EPS weighted twenty percent. There is no payout under the program if Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return falls within the lowest quartile of the peer companies in the Philadelphia Utility Index and Cumulative Entergy Adjusted EPS is below the minimum performance goal. Subject to the achievement of performance targets, each unit will be converted into one share of Entergy Corporation’s common stock on the last day of the performance period (December 31, 2022).  Accrued dividends on the shares earned will also be paid in Entergy Corporation common stock.
(3)The amounts in column (i) represent shares of restricted stock granted under the 2019 OIP.  Shares of restricted stock vest one-third on each of the first through third anniversaries of the grant date, have voting rights, and accrue dividends during the vesting period.
(4)The amounts in column (j) represent options to purchase shares of Entergy Corporation’s common stock.  The options vest one-third on each of the first through third anniversaries of the grant date and have a ten-year term from the date of grant. The options were granted under the 2019 OIP.
(5)The amounts in column (l) are valued based on the aggregate grant date fair value of the award calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 and, in the case of the performance units, are based on the probable outcome of the applicable performance conditions.  See Notes 4 and 5 to the 2020 Summary Compensation Table for a discussion of the relevant assumptions used in calculating the grant date fair value.


491

    
Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards (1)
 
Estimated Future Payouts under Equity Incentive Plan Awards (2)
        
(a) (b) (c)(d)(e) (f)(g)(h) (i) (j) (k) (l)
Name Grant Date Thresh-oldTargetMaximum Thresh-oldTargetMaximum All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Under-lying Options Exercise or Base Price of Option Awards Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards
    ($)($)($) (#)(#)(#) 
(#)
(3)
 
(#)
(4)
 ($/Sh) 
($)
(5)
Haley R. 1/26/17 $-$142,120$284,240        
    
Fisackerly 1/26/17     463
1,850
3,700
       $132,090
  1/26/17         850
     $59,951
  1/26/17           7,600
 $70.53 $49,704
                   
Andrew S. 1/26/17 $-$420,000$840,000








      
Marsh 1/26/17 



2,075
8,300
16,600



     $592,620
  1/26/17         6,100
     $430,233
  1/26/17           44,000
 $70.53 $287,760
                   
Phillip R. 1/26/17 $-$219,690$439,380            
May, Jr. 1/26/17     788
3,150
6,300
       $224,910
  1/26/17         1,100
     $77,583
  1/26/17           10,500
 $70.53 $68,670
                   
Sallie T. 1/26/17 $-$131,310$262,620      
  
    
Rainer 1/26/17     463
1,850
3,700
       $132,090
  1/26/17         900
     $63,477
  1/26/17           7,800
 $70.53 $51,012
                   
Charles L. 1/26/17 $-$114,570$229,140            
Rice, Jr. 1/26/17     463
1,850
3,700
       $132,090
  1/26/17         550
     $38,792
  1/26/17           3,900
 $70.53 $25,506
                   
Richard C. 1/26/17 $-$137,680$275,360            
Riley 1/26/17     463
1,850
3,700
       $132,090
  1/26/17         1,000
     $70,530
  1/26/17           8,000
 $70.53 $52,320
                   
Roderick K. 1/26/17 $-$472,919$945,837            
West 1/26/17     2,075
8,300
16,600
       $592,620
  1/26/17         3,200
     $225,696
  1/26/17           29,200
 $70.53 $190,968

(1)The amounts in columns (c), (d), and (e) represent minimum, target, and maximum payment levels under the Annual Incentive Plan.  The actual amounts awarded are reported in column (g) of the Summary Compensation Table.

(2)The amounts in columns (f), (g), and (h) represent the minimum, target, and maximum payment levels under the Long-Term Performance Unit Program.  Performance under the program is measured by Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return relative to the total shareholder returns of the companies included in the Philadelphia Utility Index.  There is no payout under the program if Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return falls within the lowest quartile of the peer companies in the Philadelphia Utility Index.  Subject to the achievement of performance targets, each unit will be converted into one share of Entergy Corporation’s common stock on the last day of the performance period (December 31, 2019.)  Accrued dividends on the shares earned will also be paid in Entergy Corporation common stock.
(3)The amounts in column (i) represent shares of restricted stock granted under the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan.  Shares of restricted stock vest one-third on each of the first through third anniversaries of the grant date, have voting rights, and accrue dividends during the vesting period.
(4)The amounts in column (j) represent options to purchase shares of Entergy Corporation’s common stock.  The options vest one-third on each of the first through third anniversaries of the grant date and have a ten-year term from the date of grant. The options were granted under the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan.
(5)The amounts in column (l) are valued based on the aggregate grant date fair value of the award calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 and, in the case of the performance units, are based on the probable outcome of the applicable performance conditions.  See Notes 4 and 5 to the 2017 Summary Compensation Table for a discussion of the relevant assumptions used in calculating the grant date fair value.

20172020 Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End


The following table summarizes, for each Named Executive Officer,NEO, unexercised options, restricted stock that has not vested, and equity incentive plan awards outstanding as of December 31, 2017.2020.
  Option Awards Stock Awards
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
Name Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options Option Exercise Price Option Expiration Date Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
  (#) (#) (#) ($)   (#) ($) (#) ($)
A. Christopher Bakken, III 
 
37,600(1)

   $70.53 1/26/2027        
                
8,300(4)
 $675,537
                
7,289(5)
 $593,252
            
5,200(6)
 $423,228    
            
30,000(9)
 $2,441,700    
                   
Marcus V. Brown 
 
44,000(1)

   $70.53 1/26/2027        
  15,000
 
30,000(2)

   $70.56 1/28/2026        
  16,000
 
8,000(3)

   $89.90 1/29/2025        
  30,500
 
   $63.17 1/30/2024        
  16,000
 
   $64.60 1/31/2023        
  4,600
 
   $71.30 1/26/2022        


  Option Awards Stock Awards
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
Name Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options Option Exercise Price Option Expiration Date Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
  (#) (#) (#) ($)   (#) ($) (#) ($)
  2,800
 
   $72.79 1/27/2021        
  7,500
 
   $77.10 1/28/2020        
  4,300
 
   $108.20 1/24/2018        
                
8,300(4)
 $675,537
                
8,200(5)
 $667,398
            
6,100(6)
 $496,479    
            
4,267(7)
 $347,291    
            
1,667(8)
 $135,677    
                   
Leo P. Denault 
 
179,400(1)

   $70.53 1/26/2027        
  55,666
 
111,334(2)

   $70.56 1/28/2026        
  58,666
 
29,334(3)

   $89.90 1/29/2025        
  106,000
 
   $63.17 1/30/2024        
  50,000
 
   $64.60 1/31/2023        
  30,000
 
   $71.30 1/26/2022        
  25,000
 
   $72.79 1/27/2021        
  50,000
 
   $77.10 1/28/2020        
  45,000
 
   $77.53 1/29/2019        
  50,000
 
   $108.20 1/24/2018        
                
48,700(4)
 $3,963,693
                
41,700(5)
 $3,393,963
            
17,000(6)
 $1,383,630    
            
10,467(7)
 $851,909    
            
4,000(8)
 $325,560    
                   
Haley R. Fisackerly 
 
7,600(1)

   $70.53 1/26/2027        
  2,233
 
4,467(2)

   $70.56 1/28/2026        
  3,000
 
1,500(3)

   $89.90 1/29/2025        
  1,534
 
   $71.30 1/26/2022        
  2,900
 
   $72.79 1/27/2021        
  6,000
 
   $77.10 1/28/2020        
  5,000
 
   $108.20 1/24/2018        
                
1,850(4)
 $150,572
                
1,800(5)
 $146,502

  Option Awards Stock Awards
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
Name Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options Option Exercise Price Option Expiration Date Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
  (#) (#) (#) ($)   (#) ($) (#) ($)
            
850(6)
 $69,182    
            
734(7)
 $59,740    
            
284(8)
 $23,115    
                   
Andrew S. Marsh 
 
44,000(1)

   $70.53 1/26/2027        
  15,000
 
30,000(2)

   $70.56 1/28/2026        
  16,000
 
8,000(3)

   $89.90 1/29/2025        
  35,000
 
   $63.17 1/30/2024        
  32,000
 
   $64.60 1/31/2023        
  10,000
 
   $71.30 1/26/2022        
  4,000
 
   $72.79 1/27/2021        
  9,100
 
   $77.10 1/28/2020        
  8,000
 
   $77.53 1/29/2019        
  10,000
 
   $108.20 1/24/2018        
                
8,300(4)
 $675,537
                
8,200(5)
 $667,398
            
6,100(6)
 $496,479    
            
4,267(7)
 $347,291    
            
1,667(8)
 $135,677    
            
21,100(10)
 $1,717,329    
                   
Phillip R. May, Jr. 
 
10,500(1)

   $70.53 1/26/2027        
  3,200
 
6,400(2)

   $70.56 1/28/2026        
  3,333
 
1,667(3)

   $89.90 1/29/2025        
  8,000
 
   $63.17 1/30/2024        
  6,000
 
   $64.60 1/31/2023        
  4,600
 
   $71.30 1/26/2022        
  2,900
 
   $72.79 1/27/2021        
  6,000
 
   $77.10 1/28/2020        
  4,700
 
   $77.53 1/29/2019        
  6,500
 
   $108.20 1/24/2018        
                
3,150(4)
 $256,379
                
2,700(5)
 $219,753
            
1,100(6)
 $89,529    
            
934(7)
 $76,018    
            
284(8)
 $23,115    

  Option Awards Stock Awards
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
Name Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options Option Exercise Price Option Expiration Date Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
  (#) (#) (#) ($)   (#) ($) (#) ($)
Sallie T. Rainer 
 
7,800(1)

   $70.53 1/26/2027        
  2,233
 
4,467(2)

   $70.56 1/28/2026        
  2,533
 
1,267(3)

   $89.90 1/29/2025        
  2,000
 
   $63.17 1/30/2024        
  2,000
 
   $64.60 1/31/2023        
  2,300
 
   $108.20 1/24/2018        
   
  
           
1,850(4)
 $150,572
                
1,800(5)
 $146,502
            
900(6)
 $73,251    
            
734(7)
 $59,740    
            
250(8)
 $20,348    
                   
Charles L. Rice, Jr. 
 
3,900(1)

   $70.53 1/26/2027        
  2,233
 
4,467(2)

   $70.56 1/28/2026        
  3,000
 
1,500(3)

   $89.90 1/29/2025        
   
  
           
1,850(4)
 $150,572
   
  
           
1,800(5)
 $146,502
   
  
       
550(6)
 $44,765    
   
  
       
734(7)
 $59,740    
            
250(8)
 $20,348    
                   
Richard C. Riley 
 
8,000(1)

   $70.53 1/26/2027        
  1,566
 
3,134(2)

   $70.56 1/28/2026        
  3,000
 
1,500(3)

   $89.90 1/29/2025        
  5,334
 
   $63.17 1/30/2024        
  1,334
 
   $64.60 1/31/2023        
  4,000
 
   $108.20 1/24/2018        
   
  
           
1,850(4)
 $150,572
   
  
           
1,800(5)
 $146,502
   
  
       
1,000(6)
 $81,390    
   
  
       
700(7)
 $56,973    
   
  
       
367(8)
 $29,870    

  Option Awards Stock Awards
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
Name Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options Option Exercise Price Option Expiration Date Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
  (#) (#) (#) ($)   (#) ($) (#) ($)
Roderick K. West 
 
29,200(1)

   $70.53 1/26/2027        
  13,666
 
27,334(2)

   $70.56 1/28/2026        
  15,333
 
7,667(3)

   $89.90 1/29/2025        
  12,000
 
   $63.17 1/30/2024        
  30,000
 
   $71.30 1/26/2022        
  7,000
 
   $77.10 1/28/2020        
  5,000
 
   $77.53 1/29/2019        
  8,000
 
   $108.20 1/24/2018        
   
  
           
8,300(4)
 $675,537
   
  
           
8,200(5)
 $667,398
   
  
       
3,200(6)
 $260,448    
   
  
       
4,000(7)
 $325,560    
   
  
       
1,567(8)
 $127,538    
   
  
       
21,000(11)
 $1,709,190    

(1)ConsistsOption AwardsStock Awards
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)
NameNumber of options that vestedSecurities Underlying Unexercised Options ExercisableNumber of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options UnexercisableEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned OptionsOption Exercise PriceOption Expiration DateNumber of Shares or will vest as follows: 1/3Units of the remaining unexercisable options vest on eachStock That Have Not VestedMarket Value of January 26, 2018, January 26, 2019, and January 26, 2020.Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not VestedEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not VestedEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
(#)(#)(#)($)(#)($)(#)($)
A. Christopher Bakken, III— 
29,279(1)
$131.721/30/2030
(2)Consists of options that vested or will vest as follows: — 
24,281(2)
$89.191/2 of the remaining unexercisable options vest on each of January 28, 2018 and January 28, 2019.31/2029
(3)The remaining unexercisable options vested on January 29, 2018.
— 
13,500(3)
$78.081/25/2028
(4)Consists of performance units that will vest on December 31, 2019 based on Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return performance over the 2017-2019 performance period, as described under “What Entergy Corporation Pays and Why- Executive Compensation Elements - Variable - Long-Term Incentive Compensation - Performance Unit Program” in Compensation Discussion and Analysis.
1,940(4)
$193,640
19,136(5)
$1,910,538
3,104(6)
$309,903
(5)Consists of performance units that will vest on December 31, 2018 based on Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return performance over the 2016-2018 performance period.
2,403(7)
$239,916
(6)Consists of shares of restricted stock that vested or will vest as follows:  1/3 of the shares of restricted stock granted vest on each of January 26, 2018, January 26, 2019, and January 26, 2020.
1,667(8)
$166,433
(7)Consists of shares of restricted stock that vested or will vest as follows:  1/2 of the shares of restricted stock granted vest on each of January 28, 2018 and January 28, 2019.
20,000(9)
$1,996,800
(8)Consists of shares of restricted stock that vested on January 29, 2018.
(9)Marcus V. BrownConsists of restricted stock units granted under the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan which will vest one third on April 6, 2019, April 6, 2022, and April 6, 2025.
— 
28,574(1)
$131.721/30/2030
(10)Consists of restricted stock units granted under the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan which will vest on August 3, 2020.
— 
23,813(2)
$89.191/31/2029
(11)Consists of restricted stock units granted under the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan which will vest on May 1, 2018.— 
13,500(3)
$78.081/25/2028
1,893(4)
$188,972
18,766(5)
$1,873,597
3,029(6)
$302,415
2,357(7)
$235,323
1,667(8)
$166,433



2017
492

 Option AwardsStock Awards
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)
NameNumber of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options ExercisableNumber of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options UnexercisableEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned OptionsOption Exercise PriceOption Expiration DateNumber of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not VestedMarket Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not VestedEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not VestedEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
(#)(#)(#)($)(#)($)(#)($)
Leo P. Denault— 
117,990(1)
 $131.721/30/2030  
51,402 
102,804(2)
 $89.191/31/2029  
 111,400 
55,700(3)
 $78.081/25/2028  
 179,400 —  $70.531/26/2027
 167,000 —  $70.561/28/2026
 88,000 —  $89.901/29/2025
 106,000 —  $63.171/30/2024
50,000 — $64.601/31/2023
7,816(4)
$780,324
81,016(5)
$8,088,637
12,505(6)
$1,248,499
10,173(7)
$1,015,672
5,234(8)
$522,563
David D. Ellis— 
3,200(1)
$131.721/30/2030
1,566 
3,134(2)
$89.191/31/2029
238(4)
$23,712
2,900(5)
$289,536
500(6)
$49,920
334(7)
$33,347
Haley R. Fisackerly— 
4,300(1)
 $131.721/30/2030    
— 
4,134(2)
 $89.191/31/2029    
 — 
2,200(3)
 $78.081/25/2028    
238(4)
$23,712
  
2,900(5)
$289,536
750(6)
$74,880
400(7)
$39,936
267(8)
$26,657

493

 Option AwardsStock Awards
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)
NameNumber of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options ExercisableNumber of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options UnexercisableEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned OptionsOption Exercise PriceOption Expiration DateNumber of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not VestedMarket Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not VestedEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not VestedEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
(#)(#)(#)($)(#)($)(#)($)
Laura R. Landreaux— 
4,300(1)
 $131.721/30/2030
1,700 
3,400(2)
$89.191/31/2029
238(4)
$23,712
2,900(5)
$289,536
750(6)
$74,880
      
334(7)
$33,347
400(8)
$39,936
Andrew S. Marsh— 
36,079(1)
$131.721/30/2030
15,060 
30,122(2)
$89.191/31/2029
 32,666 
16,334(3)
$78.081/25/2028
 44,000 — $70.531/26/2027
 45,000 — $70.561/28/2026
 24,000 — $89.901/29/2025
 35,000 — $63.171/30/2024
 32,000 — $64.601/31/2023
 10,000 — $71.301/26/2022
4,000 — $72.791/27/2021
2,390(4)
$238,618
 
23,738(5)
$2,370,002
3,824(6)
$381,788
2,981(7)
$297,623
1,734(8)
$173,123
Phillip R. May, Jr.— 
7,300(1)
 $131.721/30/2030
— 
6,200(2)
 $89.191/31/2029
 — 
3,300(3)
 $78.081/25/2028
        
350(4)
$34,944
        
4,300(5)
$429,312
      
1,100(6)
$109,824  
      
600(7)
$59,904  
343(8)
$33,347

494

 Option AwardsStock Awards
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)
NameNumber of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options ExercisableNumber of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options UnexercisableEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned OptionsOption Exercise PriceOption Expiration DateNumber of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not VestedMarket Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not VestedEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not VestedEquity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
(#)(#)(#)($)(#)($)(#)($)
Sallie T. Rainer— 
4,300(1)
 $131.721/30/2030    
2,066 
4,134(2)
 $89.191/31/2029
 2,200 
2,200(3)
 $78.081/25/2028    
2,600 — $70.531/26/2027
   
238(4)
$23,712
      
2,900(5)
$289,536
750(6)
$74,880
400(7)
$39,936
267(8)
$26,657
Roderick K. West— 
31,705(1)
 $131.721/30/2030    
— 
25,564(2)
 $89.191/31/2029    
 — 
14,167(3)
 $78.081/25/2028    
     
2,100(4)
$209,689
        
20,146(5)
$2,011,377
      
3,361(6)
$335,562  
      
2,530(7)
$252,595  
      
1,734(8)
$173,123  

(1)Consists of options granted under the 2019 OIP; 1/3 of the options vested on January 30, 2021 and 1/3 of the remaining options will vest on each of January 30, 2022 and January 30, 2023.
(2)Consists of options granted under the 2015 EOP; 1/2 of the options vested on January 31, 2021 and the remaining options will vest on January 30, 2022.
(3)Consists of options granted under the 2015 EOP that vested on January 25, 2021.
(4)Consists of performance units granted under the 2019 OIP that will vest on December 31, 2022 based on two performance measures: 1) Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return performance over the 2020-2022 performance period and 2) Cumulative Entergy Adjusted EPS with total shareholder return weighted eighty percent and Cumulative Entergy Adjusted EPS weighted twenty percent, as described under “What Entergy Corporation Pays and Why - Long-Term Incentive Compensation - 2020 Long-Term Incentive Award Mix - Long-Term Performance Unit Program” in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis.
(5)Consists of performance units granted under the 2015 EOP that will vest on December 31, 2021 based on two performance measures: 1) Entergy Corporation’s total shareholder return performance over the 2019-2021 performance period and 2) Cumulative Entergy Adjusted EPS with total shareholder return weighted eighty percent and Cumulative Entergy Adjusted EPS weighted twenty percent.
(6)Consists of shares of restricted stock granted under the 2019 OIP; 1/3 of the shares of restricted stock vested on January 30, 2021 and 1/3 of the remaining shares will vest on each of January 30, 2022 and January 30, 2023.
495

(7)Consists of shares of restricted stock granted under the 2015 EOP; 1/2 of the shares of restricted stock vested on January 31, 2021 and the remaining shares of restricted stock will vest on January 31, 2022.
(8)Consists of shares of restricted stock granted under the 2015 EOP that vested on January 25, 2021.
(9)Consists of restricted stock units granted under the 2015 EOP which will vest 1/2 on each of April 6, 2022 and April 6, 2025.

2020 Option Exercises and Stock Vested


The following table provides information concerning each exercise of stock options and each vesting of stock during 20172020 for the Named Executive Officers.NEOs.

 Options AwardsStock Awards
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)
NameNumber of Shares Acquired on ExerciseValue Realized on ExerciseNumber of Shares Acquired on Vesting
Value Realized on Vesting (1)
(#)($)(#)($)
A. Christopher Bakken, III38,174 $1,954,334 16,051 $1,701,473 
Marcus V. Brown40,075 $2,081,630 16,366 $1,742,234 
Leo P. Denault— $— 77,044 $7,935,333 
David D. Ellis— $— 1,659 $164,028 
Haley R. Fisackerly6,800 $351,077 3,122 $325,433 
Laura R. Landreaux— $— 3,059 $331,489 
Andrew S. Marsh— $— 37,861 $3,959,325 
Phillip R. May, Jr.13,900 $774,394 4,650 $480,241 
Sallie T. Rainer— $— 3,140 $327,765 
Roderick K. West97,249 $4,940,267 15,436 $1,621,930 

(1)Represents the value of performance units for the 2018 - 2020 performance period (payable solely in shares based on the closing stock price of Entergy Corporation on the date of vesting) under the LTIP and the vesting of shares of restricted stock in 2020.

496

  Options Awards Stock Awards
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Name Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise Value Realized on Exercise Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting 
Value Realized on Vesting (1)
  (#) ($) (#) ($)
A. Christopher Bakken, III 
 
$—
 1,212
 
$95,154
         
Marcus V. Brown 5,000
 
$35,850
 8,224
 
$598,764
         
Leo P. Denault 
 
$—
 26,741
 
$1,979,459
         
Haley R. Fisackerly 10,734
 
$134,837
 1,734
 
$126,435
         
Andrew S. Marsh 
 
$—
 8,224
 
$598,764
         
Phillip R. May, Jr. 
 
$—
 2,202
 
$161,139
         
Sallie T. Rainer 11,300
 
$169,289
 1,698
 
$123,893
         
Charles L. Rice, Jr. 9,234
 
$147,762
 1,603
 
$117,185
         
Richard C. Riley 4,500
 
$67,559
 1,847
 
$134,414
         
Roderick K. West 
 
$—
 8,396
 
$610,908

(1)Represents the value of performance units for the 2015-2017 performance period (payable solely in shares based on the closing stock price of Entergy Corporation on the date of vesting) under the Performance Unit Program and the vesting of shares of restricted stock in 2017.


20172020 Pension Benefits


The following table shows the present value as of December 31, 2017,2020, of accumulated benefits payable to each of the Named Executive Officers,NEOs, including the number of years of service credited to each Named Executive Officer,NEO, under the retirement plans sponsored by Entergy Corporation, determined using interest rate and mortality rate assumptions set forth in Note 11 to the financial statements.  Additional information regarding these retirement plans follows this table. 
NamePlan NameNumber of Years Credited ServicePresent Value of Accumulated BenefitPayments During 2020
A. Christopher Bakken, IIICash Balance Equalization Plan4.74 $287,400 $— 
Cash Balance Plan4.74 $95,800 $— 
Marcus V. Brown(1)
System Executive Retirement Plan25.74 $7,889,100 $— 
Entergy Retirement Plan25.74 $1,385,300 $— 
Leo P. Denault (1)(2)
System Executive Retirement Plan30.00 $30,747,600 $— 
 Entergy Retirement Plan21.83 $1,230,700 $— 
David D. EllisCash Balance Equalization Plan2.06 $15,200 $— 
Cash Balance Plan2.06 $35,600 $— 
Haley R. Fisackerly(1)
System Executive Retirement Plan25.08 $2,338,800 $— 
 Entergy Retirement Plan25.08 $1,249,300 $— 
Laura R. LandreauxPension Equalization Plan13.48 $258,600 $— 
Entergy Retirement Plan13.48 $577,100 $— 
Andrew S. MarshSystem Executive Retirement Plan22.37 $6,543,400 $— 
Entergy Retirement Plan22.37 $944,000 $— 
Phillip R. May, Jr. (1)(3)
System Executive Retirement Plan30.00 $3,747,400 $— 
Entergy Retirement Plan34.56 $1,827,300 $— 
Sallie T. Rainer (1)(3)
System Executive Retirement Plan30.00 $1,850,000 $— 
 Entergy Retirement Plan36.00 $2,090,800 $— 
Roderick K. WestSystem Executive Retirement Plan21.75 $7,667,200 $— 
 Entergy Retirement Plan21.75 $994,300 $— 

(1)As of December 31, 2020, Mr. Brown, Mr. Denault, Mr. Fisackerly, Mr. May, and Ms. Rainer were retirement eligible.
(2)In 2006, Mr. Denault entered into a retention agreement granting him additional years of service and permission to retire under the non-qualified System Executive Retirement Plan (“SERP”) in the event his employment is terminated by his Entergy employer other than for cause (as defined in the retention agreement), by Mr. Denault for good reason (as defined in the retention agreement), or on account of his death or disability. His retention agreement also provides that if he terminates employment for any other reason, he shall be entitled to up to an additional 15 years of service under the SERP only if his Entergy employer grants him permission to retire subject to the overall 30 year cap on service credit under the SERP. The amount reflected in the table for the SERP is calculated based on 30 years of service. The additional years of service credited to Mr. Denault under his retention agreement increased the present value of Mr. Denault’s benefit by $4,020,200.
(3)Service under the SERP is granted from the date of hire. Service under the qualified Entergy Retirement Plan is granted from the later of the date of hire or the plan participation date. The SERP amounts reflected in the table for Mr. May and Ms. Rainer are calculated based on 30 years of service pursuant to the terms of the SERP.
497

Name Plan Name Number of Years Credited Service Present Value of Accumulated Benefit Payments During 2017
A. Christopher Bakken, III Cash Balance Equalization Plan 1.74
 
$30,600
 
$—
  Cash Balance Plan 1.74
 
$30,300
 
$—
         
Marcus V. Brown(1)
 System Executive Retirement Plan 22.74
 
$4,793,900
 
$—
  Entergy Retirement Plan 22.74
 
$907,400
 
$—
         
Leo P. Denault (1)(2)
 System Executive Retirement Plan 33.83
 
$22,072,300
 
$—
  Entergy Retirement Plan 18.83
 
$802,000
 
$—
         
Haley R. Fisackerly System Executive Retirement Plan 22.08
 
$1,370,100
 
$—
  Entergy Retirement Plan 22.08
 
$789,100
 
$—
         
Andrew S. Marsh System Executive Retirement Plan 19.37
 
$3,493,700
 
$—
  Entergy Retirement Plan 19.37
 
$548,400
 
$—
         
Phillip R. May, Jr. (1)
 System Executive Retirement Plan 31.56
 
$2,398,400
 
$—
  Entergy Retirement Plan 31.56
 
$1,227,800
 
$—
         
Sallie T. Rainer (1)(3)
 System Executive Retirement Plan 33.38
 
$1,356,000
 
$—
  Entergy Retirement Plan 33.00
 
$1,415,200
 
$—
         
Charles L. Rice, Jr. System Executive Retirement Plan 8.47
 
$609,100
 
$—
  Entergy Retirement Plan 8.47
 
$307,800
 
$—
         
Richard C. Riley (1)(4)
 System Executive Retirement Plan 28.01
 
$1,688,200
 
$—
  Entergy Retirement Plan 22.55
 
$866,000
 
$—
         
Roderick K. West System Executive Retirement Plan 18.75
 
$4,636,200
 
$—
  Entergy Retirement Plan 18.75
 
$594,100
 
$—



(1)As of December 31, 2017, Mr. Brown, Mr. Denault, Mr. May, Ms. Rainer, and Mr. Riley were retirement eligible.
(2)In 2006, Mr. Denault entered into a retention agreement granting him an additional 15 years of service and permission to retire under the non-qualified System Executive Retirement Plan in the event his employment is terminated by his Entergy employer other than for cause (as defined in the retention agreement), by Mr. Denault for good reason (as defined in the retention agreement), or on account of his death or disability. His retention agreement also provides that if he terminates employment for any other reason, he shall be entitled to the additional 15 years of service under the non-qualified System Executive Retirement Plan only if his Entergy employer grants him permission to retire. The additional 15 years of service increases the present value of his benefit by $3,967,700.
(3)Service under the non-qualified System Executive Retirement Plan is granted from the date of hire. Qualified plan benefit service is granted from the later of the date of hire or the plan participation date.

Retirement Benefits
(4)Mr. Riley separated from Entergy Corporation and was subsequently rehired in June 1995. The Entergy Retirement Plan does not include any credit service prior to his rehire date, however, the System Executive Retirement Plan reflects a net credited service date of December 28, 1989.

The tables below contain summaries of the pension benefit plans sponsored by Entergy Corporation that the Named Executive OfficersNEOs participated in during 2017.2020. Benefits for the Named Executive OfficersNEOs who participate in these plans are determined using the same formulas as for other eligible employees.


Qualified Retirement Benefits


Entergy Retirement PlanCash Balance Plan
Eligible Named Executive Officers
Marcus V. Brown

Haley R. Fisackerly

Leo P. Denault

Andrew S. Marsh

Laura R. Landreaux
Phillip R. May, Jr.

Sallie T. Rainer
Charles L. Rice, Jr.
Richard C. Riley

Roderick K. West

A. Christopher Bakken, III
David D. Ellis
EligibilityNon-bargaining employees hired on or before July 1, 2014Non-bargaining employees hired on or after July 1, 2014 and before January 1, 2021.
VestingA participant becomes vested in the Entergy Retirement Plan upon attainment of at least 5 years of vesting service or upon attainment of age 65 while actively employed by an Entergy system company.A participant becomes vested in the Cash Balance Plan upon attainment of at least 3 years of vesting service or upon attainment of age 65 while actively employed by an Entergy system company.
Form of Payment Upon RetirementBenefits are payable as an annuity. For employees who separate from service on or after January 1, 2018, a single lump sum distribution may be elected by the participant if eligibility criteria are met.Benefits are payable as an annuity or single lump sum distribution.
Retirement Benefit Formula
Benefits are calculated as a single life annuity payable at age 65 and generally are equal to 1.5% of a participant’s Final Average Monthly Earnings (FAME) multiplied by years of service (not to exceed 40).



“Earnings” for the purpose of calculating FAME generally includes the employee’s base salary and eligible annual incentive awards subject to Internal Revenue Code limitations, and excludes all other bonuses. Executive Annual Incentive Awardsannual incentive awards are not eligible for inclusion in Earnings under this plan.



FAME is calculated using the employee’s average monthly Earnings for the 60 consecutive months in which the employee’s earnings were highest during the 120 month

period immediately preceding the employee’s retirement and includes up to 5 eligible annual incentive awards paid during the 60 month period.






The normal retirement benefit at age 65 is determined by converting the sum of an employee’s annual pay credits and his or her annual interest credits, into an actuarially equivalent annuity.



Pay credits ranging from 4-8% of an employee’s eligible Earnings are allocated annually to a notional account for the employee based on an employee’s age and years of service. Earnings for purposes of calculating an employee’s pay credit include the employee’s base salary and annual incentive awards subject to Internal Revenue Code limitations and exclude all other bonuses. Executive Annual Incentive Awardsannual incentive awards are eligible for inclusion in Earnings under this plan.



Interest credits are calculated based upon the annual rate of interest on 30-year U.S. Treasury securities, as specified by the Internal Revenue Service, for the month of August preceding the first day of the applicable calendar year subject to a minimum rate of 2.6% and a maximum rate of 9%.


498

Benefit Timing
Normal retirement age under the plan is 65.



A reduced terminated vested benefit may be commenced as early as age 55. The amount of this benefit is determined by reducing the normal retirement benefit by 7% per year for the first 5 years commencement precedes age 65, and 6% per year for each additional year commencement precedes age 65.



A subsidized early retirement benefit may be commenced by employees who are at least age 55 with 10 years of service at the time they separate from service. The amount of this benefit is determined by reducing the normal retirement benefit by 2% per year for each year that early retirement precedes age 65.
Normal retirement age under the plan is 65.



A vested cash balance benefit can be commenced as early as the first day of the month following separation from service. The amount of the benefit is determined in the same manner as the normal retirement benefit described above in the “Retirement Benefit Formula” section.


Non-qualified Retirement Benefits
The Named Executive OfficersNEOs are eligible to participate in certain non-qualified retirement benefit plans that provide retirement income, including the Pension Equalization Plan (“PEP”), the Cash Balance Equalization Plan, and the System Executive Retirement Plan.SERP. Each of these plans is an unfunded non-qualified defined benefit pension plan that provides benefits to key management employees. In these plans, as described below, an executive is typically enrolledmay participate in one or more non-qualified plans, but is only paid the amount due under the plan that provides the highest benefit. In general, upon disability, participants in the Pension Equalization PlanPEP and the System Executive Retirement PlanSERP remain eligible for continued service credits until the earlier of recovery, separation from service due to disability, or retirement eligibility. Generally, spouses of participants who die before commencement of benefits may be eligible for a portion of the participant’s accrued benefit.

Pension Equalization PlanCash Balance Equalization PlanSystem Executive Retirement Plan
Eligible Named Executive Officers
Marcus V. Brown

Haley R. Fisackerly

Leo P. Denault

Laura R. Landreaux
Andrew S. Marsh

Phillip R. May, Jr.

Sallie T. Rainer
Charles L. Rice, Jr.
Richard C. Riley

Roderick K. West


A. Christopher Bakken, III
David D. Ellis
Marcus V. Brown

Haley R. Fisackerly

Leo P. Denault

Andrew S. Marsh

Phillip R. May, Jr.

Sallie T. Rainer
Charles L. Rice, Jr.
Richard C. Riley

Roderick K. West


EligibilityManagement or highly compensated employees who participate in the Entergy Retirement PlanManagement or highly compensated employees who participate in the Cash Balance PlanCertain individuals who became executive officers before July 1, 2014
Form of Payment Upon RetirementSingle lump sum distributionSingle lump sum distributionSingle lump sum distribution
499

Retirement Benefit Formula
Benefits generally are equal to the actuarial present value of the difference between (1) the amount that would have been payable as an annuity under the Entergy Retirement Plan, including Executive Annual Incentive Awardsexecutive annual incentive awards as eligible earnings and without applying limitations of the Internal Revenue Code limitationsof 1986, as amended (the “Code”) on pension benefits and earnings that may be considered in calculating tax-qualified pension benefits, and (2) the amount actually payable as an annuity under the Entergy Retirement Plan.
Executive annual incentive awards are taken into account as eligible earnings under this plan.
Benefits generally are equal to the difference between the amount that would have been payable as a lump sum under the Cash Balance Plan, but for Internal Revenuethe Code limitations on pension benefits and earnings that may be considered in calculating tax-qualified cash balance plan benefits, and the amount actually payable as a lump sum under the Cash Balance Plan.Benefits generally are equal to the actuarial present value of a specified percentage, based on the participant’s years of service (including supplemental service granted under the plan) and management level of the participant’s “Final Average Monthly Compensation” (which is generally 1/36th of the sum of the participant’s base salary and Annual Incentive Planannual incentive plan award for the 3 highest years during the last 10 years preceding separation from service), after first being reduced by the

Pension Equalization PlanCash Balance Equalization PlanSystem Executive Retirement Plan
Executive Annual Incentive Awards are taken into account as eligible earnings under this plan.payable as a lump sum under the Cash Balance Plan.value of the participant’s Entergy Retirement Plan benefit.
Benefit timing
Payable at age 65



Benefits payable prior to age 65 are subject to the same reduced terminated vested or early retirement reduction factors as benefits payable under the Entergy Retirement Plan as described above.



An employee with supplemental credited service who terminates employment prior to age 65 must receive prior written consent of the Entergy employer in order to receive the portion of their benefit attributable to their supplemental credited service agreement.



Benefits payable upon separation from service subject to the 6 month delay required under the Code Section 409A.
Payable upon separation from service subject to 6 month delay required under the Code Section 409A.
Payable at age 65



Prior to age 65, vesting is conditioned on the prior written consent of the officer’s Entergy employer.



Benefits payable prior to age 65 are subject to the same reduced terminated vested or subsidized early retirement reduction factors as benefits payable under the Entergy Retirement Plan as described above.



Benefits payable upon separation from service subject to the 6 month delay required under Internal Revenue Code Section 409A.


Additional Information

(1)Effective July 1, 2014, (a) no new grants of supplemental service may be provided to participants in the Pension Equalization Plan; (b) supplemental credited service granted prior to July 1, 2014 was grandfathered; and (c) participants in Entergy Corporation’s Cash Balance Plan are not eligible to participate in the Pension Equalization Plan and instead may be eligible to participate in the Cash Balance Equalization Plan.
(2)Benefits already accrued under the System Executive Retirement Plan, Pension Equalization Plan, and Cash Balance Equalization Plan, if any, will become fully vested if a participant is involuntarily terminated without cause or terminates his or her employment for good reason in connection with a change in control with payment generally made in a lump-sum payment as soon as reasonably practicable following the first day of the month after the termination of employment, unless delayed 6 months under Code Section 409A.
(3)The System Executive Retirement Plan was closed to new executive officers effective July 1, 2014.



(1)Effective July 1, 2014, (a) no new grants of supplemental service may be provided to participants in the Pension Equalization Plan; (b) supplemental credited service granted prior to July 1, 2014 was grandfathered; and (c) participants in Entergy Corporation’s Cash Balance Plan are not eligible to participate in the Pension Equalization Plan and instead may be eligible to participate in the Cash Balance Equalization Plan.
2017(2)Benefits accrued under the SERP, PEP, and Cash Balance Equalization Plan, if any, will become fully vested if a participant is involuntarily terminated without cause or terminates his or her employment for good reason in connection with a change in control with payment generally made in a lump-sum payment as soon as reasonably practicable following the first day of the month after the termination of employment, unless delayed 6 months under Internal Revenue Code Section 409A.
(3)The SERP was closed to new executive officers effective July 1, 2014.

500

2020 Non-qualified Deferred Compensation


As of December 31, 2017,2020, Mr. May had a deferred account balance under a frozen Defined Contribution Restoration Plan.  The amount is deemed invested, as chosen by the participant,Mr. May, in certain T. Rowe Price investment funds that are also available to the participant under the Savings Plan.  Mr. May has elected to receive the deferred account balance after he retires. The Defined Contribution Restoration Plan, until it was frozen in 2005, credited eligible employees’ deferral accounts with employer contributions to the extent contributions under the qualified savings plan in which the employee participated were subject to limitations imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.


Defined Contribution Restoration Plan
NameExecutive Contributions in 2020Registrant Contributions in 2020
Aggregate Earnings in 2020(1)
Aggregate Withdrawals/DistributionsAggregate Balance at December 31, 2020
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)
      
Phillip R. May, Jr.$— $— $80 $— $3,067 
Name Executive Contributions in 2017 Registrant Contributions in 2017 
Aggregate Earnings in 2017(1)
 Aggregate Withdrawals/Distributions Aggregate Balance at December 31, 2017
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
           
Phillip R. May, Jr. 
$—
 
$—
 
$362
 
$—
 
$2,113


(1)Amounts in this column are not included in the Summary Compensation Table.

(1)Amounts in this column are not included in the Summary Compensation Table.


20172020 Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control


Entergy Corporation has plans and other arrangements that provide compensation to a Named Executive OfficerNEO if his or her employment terminates under specified conditions, including following a change in control of Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries. The tables
Change in Control
Under Entergy Corporation’s System Executive Continuity Plan (the “Continuity Plan”), ML 1-4 Officers are eligible to receive the severance benefits described below reflect the amount of compensation each of the Named Executive Officers would have received if his or hertheir employment with an Entergy employer had beenis terminated under various scenarios as of December 31, 2017. For purposes of these tables, a stock price of $81.39 was used, which was the closing market price on December 29, 2017, the last trading day of the year.

Benefits and Payments Upon TerminationVoluntary ResignationFor CauseTermination for Good Reason or Not for CauseRetirementDisabilityDeathTermination Related to a Change in Control
A. Christopher Bakken, III(1)
       
Severance Payment(5)







$2,511,506
Performance Units(7)





$620,680

$620,680

$1,530,132
Stock Options(8)





$408,336

$408,336

$408,336
Restricted Stock(9)





$442,029

$442,029

$442,029
Welfare Benefits(10)







$20,358
Unvested Restricted Stock Units(12)



$813,900


$813,900

$813,900

$2,441,700
        
Marcus V. Brown(2)
       
Severance Payment(5)







$3,213,000
Performance Units(7)



$670,165

$670,165

$670,165

$1,530,132
Stock Options(8)




$802,740

$802,740

$802,740

$802,740
Restricted Stock(9)





$1,041,711

$1,041,711

$1,054,082
Welfare Benefits(11)







        
Leo P. Denault(3)
       
Severance Payment(5)







$10,119,954
Performance Units(6)(7)



$3,174,210
$3,583,846

$3,583,846

$3,583,846

$6,511,200
Stock Options(8)



$3,154,024

$3,154,024

$3,154,024

$3,154,024

$3,154,024
Restricted Stock(9)



$2,750,413


$2,750,413

$2,750,413

$2,750,413
Welfare Benefits(11)







        
Haley R. Fisackerly(4)
       
Severance Payment(5)







$497,420
Performance Units(7)





$147,886

$147,886

$358,116
Stock Options(8)





$130,910

$130,910

$130,910
Restricted Stock(9)





$161,966

$161,966

$164,163
Welfare Benefits(10)







$18,252
        
Andrew S. Marsh(4)
       
Severance Payment(5)







$3,060,000
Performance Units(7)





$670,165

$670,165

$1,530,132
Stock Options(8)





$802,740

$802,740

$802,740
Restricted Stock(9)





$1,041,711

$1,041,711

$1,054,082
Welfare Benefits(10)







$27,378
Unvested Restricted Stock Units(13)





$1,717,329

$1,717,329

$1,717,329
        

Benefits and Payments Upon TerminationVoluntary ResignationFor CauseTermination for Good Reason or Not for CauseRetirementDisabilityDeathTermination Related to a Change in Control
Phillip R. May, Jr.(2)
       
Severance Payment(5)







$1,171,680
Performance Units(7)




$231,962

$231,962

$231,962

$504,618
Stock Options(8)




$183,342

$183,342

$183,342

$183,342
Restricted Stock(9)





$201,034

$201,034

$203,231
Welfare Benefits(11)







        
Sallie T. Rainer(2)
       
Severance Payment(5)







$459,585
Performance Units(7)




$147,886

$147,886

$147,886

$358,116
Stock Options(8)




$133,082

$133,082

$133,082

$133,082
Restricted Stock(9)





$163,269

$163,269

$165,222
Welfare Benefits(11)







        
Charles R. Rice, Jr(4)
       
Severance Payment(5)







$400,993
Performance Units(7)





$147,886

$147,886

$358,116
Stock Options(8)





$90,728

$90,728

$90,728
Restricted Stock(9)





$133,480

$133,480

$135,433
Welfare Benefits(10)







$18,252
        
Richard C. Riley(2)
       
Severance Payment(5)







$481,880
Performance Units(7)




$147,886

$147,886

$147,886

$358,116
Stock Options(8)




$120,814

$120,814

$120,814

$120,814
Restricted Stock(9)





$178,896

$178,896

$181,663
Welfare Benefits(11)







        
Roderick K. West(4)
       
Severance Payment(5)







$3,434,065
Performance Units(7)





$670,165

$670,165

$1,530,132
Stock Options(8)





$613,132

$613,132

$613,132
Restricted Stock(9)





$762,624

$762,624

$774,344
Welfare Benefits(10)







$27,378
Unvested Restricted Stock Units(14)



$1,709,190




$1,709,190

Pension Benefits

1)In addition to the payments and benefits in the table, if Mr. Bakken’s employment were terminated under certain conditions relating to a change in control, on the first day of the month following the Qualifying Event (as defined in the Cash Balance Equalization Plan) he would have become vested in and would have been entitled to receive his vested pension benefits accumulated in the Cash Balance Equalization Plan as of the date of the Qualifying Event so long as a forfeiture event does not occur as described in the plan. For a description of the pension benefits under the Cash Balance Equalization Plan, see “2017 Pension Benefits.”

2)As of December 31, 2017, Messrs. Brown, May, and Riley and Ms. Rainer are retirement eligible and would retire rather than voluntarily resign, and in addition to the payments and benefits in the table, each also would be entitled to receive his or her vested pension benefits under the Entergy Retirement Plan. For a description of the pension

benefits available, see “2017 Pension Benefits.” In the event their termination by their Entergy System employer withoutother than for cause or by Mr. Brown, Mr. May, Ms. Rainer, or Mr. Rileyif they terminate their employment for good reason during a period beginning with a potential change in connection withcontrol and ending 24 months following the effective date of a change in control each would(a “Qualifying Termination”). A participant will not be eligible for subsidized early retirement benefits under the System Executive RetirementContinuity Plan even if they dosuch participant: accepts employment with Entergy Corporation or any of its subsidiaries; elects to receive the benefits of another severance or separation program; removes, copies or fails to return any property belonging to Entergy Corporation or any of its subsidiaries or violates his or her non-compete provision (which generally runs for two years but extends to three years if permissible under applicable law). Entergy Corporation does not have company permissionany plans or agreements that provide for payments or benefits to separate from employment. If Mr. Brown’s, Mr. May’s, Ms. Rainer’s, or Mr. Riley’s employment were terminated for cause in connection withany of the NEOs solely upon a change in control, they would not be entitled tocontrol.

In the event of a Qualifying Termination, executive officers, including the NEOs, generally will receive a benefit under the System Executive Retirement Plan. If their employment were terminated for any reason not in connection with a change in control, or they were to retire from their Entergy employer before age 65 without the permissionbenefits set forth below:
501


3)Compensation ElementAs of December 31, 2017, Mr. Denault is retirement eligible and would retire rather than voluntarily resign, and in addition to the payments and benefits in the table, Mr. Denault also would be entitled to receive his vested pension benefits under the Entergy Retirement Plan. For a description of the pension benefits available, see “2017 Pension Benefits.” If Mr. Denault’s employment was terminated by his Entergy employer other than for cause, by Mr. Denault for good reason or on account of his death or disability, he would also be eligible for certain additional retirement benefits. For a description of these benefits, see “2017 Pension Benefits.” Otherwise, if Mr. Denault’s employment was terminated for cause or he was to retire from his Entergy employer before age 65 without the permission of his Entergy employer, he would not receive a benefit under the System Executive Retirement Plan.

Payment
4)Severance*In addition to the payments and benefits in the table, if Mr. Fisackerly’s, Mr. Marsh’s, Mr. Rice’s, or Mr. West’s employment were terminated under certain conditions relating to a change in control, each also would have been entitled to receive his vested pension benefits upon attainment of age 55 under the Entergy Retirement Plan and would have been eligible for early retirement benefits under the System Executive Retirement Plan calculated using early retirement reduction factors. For a description of the pension benefits, see “2017 Pension Benefits.” Mr. Fisackerly’s, Mr. Marsh’s, Mr. Rice’s, or Mr. West’s employment were terminated for cause in connection with a change in control, he would not be entitled to receive a benefit under the System Executive Retirement Plan. If his employment were terminated for any reason not in connection with a change in control, or each were to resign from his Entergy employer before age 65 without the permission of his Entergy employer, each would not be entitled to receive a benefit under the System Executive Retirement Plan.

Severance Payments:

5)
In the event of a termination by the executive for good reason or by his or her Entergy system employer not for cause during the period beginning upon the occurrence of a “potential change in control” (as defined in the System Executive Continuity Plan) and ending on the 2nd anniversary of a change in control, each Named Executive Officer would be entitled to receive pursuant to the System Executive Continuity Plan aA lump sum severance payment equal to a multiple of the sum of (1) his or herof: (a) the participant’s annual base salary as in effect at any time within one year prior to the commencement of a change of control period or, if higher, immediately prior to a circumstance constituting good reason, plus (2) his or her(b) the participant’s annual incentive, calculated using the average annual target opportunity derived under the Annual Incentive Planannual incentive program for 2015 and 2016 (thethe two calendar years immediately preceding the calendar year in which termination occurs), but in no event shall the severance payment exceed the product of 2.99 times the sum of (a) his or her annual base salary as in effect at any time within one year prior to the commencement of a change in control period or, if higher, immediately prior to a circumstance constituting good reason plus (b) the higher of his or her actual annual incentive payment under the Annual Incentive Plan for the 2016 performance year or his or her annual incentive, calculated using the average annual target opportunity derived under the Annual Incentive Plan for 2015 and 2016 (the two calendar years immediately preceding the calendar year in which termination occurs). For purposes of this table, the following target opportunity and base salary were assumed:

Named Executive OfficerTarget OpportunityBase Salary
A. Christopher Bakken III35%$620,125
Marcus V. Brown70%$630,000
Leo P. Denault130%$1,230,000
Haley R. Fisackerly40%$355,300
Andrew S. Marsh70%$600,000
Phillip R. May Jr,60%$366,150
Sallie T. Rainer40%$328,275
Charles L. Rice, Jr.40%$286,424
Richard C. Riley40%$344,200
Roderick K. West70%$675,598

Performance Units:

occurs.
6)Performance UnitsWithUnder the 2015 EOP and the performance unit agreements in respect to Mr. Denault, inof the event of a Termination Event (as defined in Mr. Denault’s 2006 retention agreement), he is entitled to a Target LTIP Award, as defined in his 2006 retention agreement, calculated by using the average annual number of2019 - 2021 performance period, participants would forfeit outstanding performance units, with respect to the two most recent performance periods preceding the calendar year in which his employment termination occurs, assuming all performance goals were achieved at target. For purposes of the table, the value of Mr. Denault’s retention payment was calculated by taking an average of the target performance units from the 2013-2015 Performance Unit Program (38,000) and from the 2014-2016 Performance Unit Program (40,000). This average number of units (39,000) multiplied by the closing price of Entergy Corporation’s common stock on December 29, 2017 ($81.39) would equal a payment of $3,174,210. In the event of death or disability, Mr. Denault receives the greater of the Target LTIP Award calculated as described above or the sum of the amount that would be payable under the provisions of each open Performance Unit Program as described in Note 7 below.

7)In the event of a qualifying termination related to a change in control, each Named Executive Officer would have forfeited his or her performance units for the 2016-2018 and 2017-2019 performance periods and would have been entitled to receive, pursuant to the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan, a single-lump sum payment in lieu of any payment for each performance award that would not be based on any outstanding performance period. The paymentsperiod, would receive a single-lump sum payment calculated by multiplying the target performance units for the 2016-2018 and the 2017-2019 performance periods would have been calculated using the most recent performance period preceding (but not including) the calendar year in which his or her termination occurs. For purposes of the table, the value of Mr. Denault’s payments was calculated by multiplying the target performance units for the 2014-2016 Performance Unit Program (40,000)occurs by the closing price of Entergy Corporation’sEntergy’s common stock on December 29, 2017 ($81.39), which would equal a payment of $3,255,600 for the forfeited performance units for each performance period. The valueas of the payments forlater of the other Named Executive Officers was calculated by multiplyingdate of such termination or the targetdate of the Change in Control. Under the 2019 OIP and the performance units forunit agreements in respect of the 2014-2016 Performance Unit Program (9,400) by the closing price2020 - 2022 performance unit period, participants would receive a number of shares of Entergy Corporation’s common stock on December 29, 2017 ($81.39), which would equal a payment of $765,066 for the forfeited performance units for each performance period. In the event his death or disability, Mr. Denault would receiveto the greater of (1) the target Long-Term Performance Incentive award as described in note 6 above or a pro-rated number of performance units for all opensubject to the performance periods,unit agreement or (2) the number of units that would vest under the performance unit agreement calculated based on the performance of Entergy Corporation through the participant’s termination date, in either case pro-rated based on the portion of the performance period that occurs through the termination date.
Equity AwardsAll unvested stock options, shares of restricted stock and restricted stock units will vest immediately upon a “double trigger” Qualifying Termination pursuant to the terms of the 2015 EOP and 2019 OIP.
Retirement BenefitsBenefits already accrued under the SERP, PEP and Cash Balance Equalization Plan, if any, will become fully vested.
Welfare BenefitsParticipants who are not retirement-eligible would be eligible to receive Entergy-subsidized COBRA benefits for a period ranging from 12 to 18 months.
*    Cash severance payments are capped at 2.99 times the sum of (a) an executive’s annual base salary plus (b) the higher of his or her actual annual incentive payment under the annual incentive program or his or her annual incentive, calculated using the average annual target opportunity derived under the annual incentive program for the two calendar years immediately preceding the calendar year in which termination occurs. Any cash severance payments to be paid under the Continuity Plan in excess of this cap will be forfeited by the participant.
To protect shareholders and Entergy Corporation’s business model, executives are required to comply with non-compete, non-solicitation, confidentiality and non-denigration provisions. If an executive discloses non-public data or information concerning Entergy Corporation or any of its subsidiaries or violates his or her non-compete provision, he or she will be required to repay any benefits previously received under the Continuity Plan.

For purposes of the Continuity Plan the following events are generally defined as:

Change in Control: (a) the purchase of 30% or more of either Entergy Corporation’s common stock or the combined voting power of Entergy Corporation’s voting securities; (b) the merger or consolidation of Entergy Corporation (unless its Board members constitute at least a majority of the board members of the surviving entity); (c) the liquidation, dissolution or sale of all or substantially all of Entergy Corporation’s assets; or (d) a change in the composition of Entergy Corporation’s Board such that, during any two-year period, the individuals serving at the beginning of the period no longer constitute a majority of Entergy Corporation’s Board at the end of the period.

Potential Change in Control: (a) Entergy Corporation or an affiliate enters into an agreement the consummation of which would constitute a Change in Control; (b) the Entergy Corporation Board adopts resolutions determining that, for purposes of the Continuity Plan, a potential Change in Control has occurred; (c) a System Company or other person or entity publicly announces an intention to take actions that would constitute a Change in Control; or (d) any person or entity becomes the beneficial owner (directly or indirectly)
502

of Entergy Corporation’s outstanding shares of common stock constituting 20% or more of the voting power or value of the Entergy Corporation’s outstanding common stock.

Cause: The participant’s (a) willful and continuous failure to perform substantially his or her duties after written demand for performance; (b) engagement in conduct that is materially injurious to Entergy Corporation or any of its subsidiaries; (c) conviction or guilty or nolo contendere plea to a felony or other crime that materially and adversely affects either his or her ability to perform his or her duties or Entergy Corporation’s reputation; (d) material violation of any agreement with Entergy Corporation or any of its subsidiaries; or (e) disclosure of any of Entergy Corporation’s confidential information without authorization.

Good Reason: The participant’s (a) nature or status of duties and responsibilities is substantially altered or reduced; (b) salary is reduced by 5% or more; (c) primary work location is relocated outside the continental United States; (d) compensation plans are discontinued without an equitable replacement; (e) benefits or number of vacation days are substantially reduced; or (f) employment is terminated by an Entergy employer for reasons other than in accordance with the Continuity Plan.
Other Termination Events

For termination events, other than in connection with a Change in Control, the executive officers, including the NEOs, generally will receive the benefits set forth below:
Termination EventCompensation Element
SeveranceAnnual IncentiveStock OptionsRestricted StockPerformance Units
Voluntary ResignationNoneForfeited*Unvested options are forfeited. Vested options expire on the earlier of (i) 90 days from the last day of active employment and (ii) the option’s normal expiration date.ForfeitedForfeited**
Termination for CauseNoneForfeitedForfeitedForfeitedForfeited
RetirementNonePro-rated based on number of days employed during the performance periodUnvested stock options granted prior to 2020 vest on the retirement date and expire on the earlier of (i) five years from the retirement date and (ii) the option’s normal expiration date. Unvested stock options granted in 2020 continue to vest following retirement, in accordance with the original vesting schedule and expire the earlier of (i) five years from the retirement date and (ii) the option’s normal expiration date.ForfeitedOfficers with a minimum of 12 months of his participation in each openare eligible for a pro-rated award based on actual performance period.and full months of service during the performance period
Death/DisabilityNonePro-rated based on number of days employed during the performance period
Unvested stock options vest on the termination date and expire on the earlier of (i) five years from the termination date and (ii) the option’s normal expiration dateFully VestOfficers are eligible for pro-rated award based on actual performance and full months of service during the performance period

503

*    If an officer resigns after the completion of an annual incentive plan, he or she may receive, at Entergy Corporation’s discretion, an annual incentive payment.
**    If an officer resigns after the completion of a LTIP performance period, he or she may receive a payout under the LTIP based on the outcome of the performance period.

Mr. Denault’s 2006 Retention Agreement

In 2006, Entergy Corporation entered into a retention agreement with Mr. Denault that provides benefits to him in addition to, or in lieu of, the benefits described above. Specifically, in the event of a Termination Event (as defined in his agreement): 1) Mr. Denault is entitled to a Target LTIP Award calculated by using the average annual number of performance units with respect to the two most recent performance periods preceding the calendar year in which his employment termination occurs, assuming all performance goals were achieved at target; and 2) all of Mr. Denault’s unvested stock options and shares of restricted stock will immediately vest.

In the event of retirement in the case of Mr. Brown, Mr. Denault, Mr. May, Ms. Rainer, or Mr. Riley, or upon death or disability, other than Mr. Denault each Named Executive Officer would not have forfeited hisreceive the greater of the Target LTIP Award calculated as described above or herthe pro-rated number of performance units for all open performance periods, but rather such performance unit awards would have been pro-rated based on his or herthe number of months of his participation in each open Performance Unit Program performance period, in accordance with his grant agreement under the Performance Unit Program. The amount of the award is based on actual performance achieved, with a stock price set as of the end of the performance period, and payable in the form of a lump sum after the completion of the performance period. For purposes of the table, the values of the awards were calculated as follows:

Mr. Denault’s:
2016 - 2018 Plan - 27,800 (24/36*41,700) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $81.39
2017 - 2019 Plan - 16,233 (12/36*48,700) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $81.39
Mr. Bakken’s:
2016 - 2018 Plan - 4,859 (24/36*7,289) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $81.39
2017 - 2019 Plan - 2,767 (12/36*8,300) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $81.39
Messrs. Brown’s, Marsh’s, and West’s:
2016 - 2018 Plan - 5,467 (24/36*8,200) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $81.39
2017 - 2019 Plan - 2,767 (12/36*8,300) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $81.39

Mr. May’s:
2016 - 2018 Plan - 1,800 (24/36*2,700) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $81.39
2017 - 2019 Plan - 1,050 (12/36*3,150) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $81.39

Messrs. Fisackerly’s, Rice’s, Riley’s, and Ms. Rainer’s:

2016 - 2018 Plan - 1,200 (24/36*1,800) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $81.39
2017 - 2019 Plan - 617 (12/36*1,850) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $81.39

Stock Options:

8)In the event of death or disability or qualifying termination related to a change in control, or retirement in the case of Mr. Brown, Mr. Denault, Mr. May, Ms. Rainer, or Mr. Riley, all of the unvested stock options of each Named Executive Officer would immediately vest pursuant to the Equity Ownership Plans. In addition, with respect to grants under the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan, each Named Executive Officer would be entitled to exercise his or her stock options for the remainder of the ten-year period extending from the grant date of the options, and with respect to grants under the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan, within the lesser of five years or the remaining term of the option grant. For purposes of this table, it is assumed that the Named Executive Officers exercised their options immediately upon vesting and received proceeds equal to the difference between the closing price of common stock on December 29, 2017, and the applicable exercise price of each option share.

In the event of a Termination Event as defined in his 2006 retention agreement, Mr. Denault will immediately vest in all unvested stock options.

Restricted Stock:

9)In the event of death or disability pursuant to the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan, each Named Executive Officer would immediately vest in a pro-rated portion of his or her unvested restricted stock that was otherwise scheduled to become vested on the immediately following 12-month grant date anniversary date, as well as dividends declared on the pro-rated portion of such restricted stock pursuant to the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan. The pro-rated vested portion would be determined based on the number of days between the most recent preceding 12-month grant date anniversary date and the date of his or her death or disability. In the event of his or her qualifying termination related to a change in control, a Named Executive Officer would immediately vest in all of their unvested restricted stock, as well as dividends declared on such restricted stock granted pursuant the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan. In the event of death, disability, or qualifying termination related to a change in control, each Named Executive Officer would vest in all of their unvested restricted stock as well as dividends declared pursuant to the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan.


In the event of a Termination Event as defined in his 2006 retention agreement, Mr. Denault will immediately vest in all unvested restricted stock.

Welfare Benefits:

10)Pursuant to the System Executive Continuity Plan, in the event of a termination related to a change in control, Mr. Bakken, Mr. Marsh, and Mr. West would be eligible to receive Entergy-sponsored COBRA benefits for 18 months and Mr. Fisackerly and Mr. Rice would be eligible to receive Entergy-sponsored COBRA benefits for 12 months.

11)Upon retirement, Mr. Brown, Mr. Denault, Mr. May, Ms. Rainer, and Mr. Riley would be eligible for retiree medical and dental benefits, the same as all other retirees.

Unvested Restricted Stock Units:

12)
Mr.Bakken’s 30,000 restricted stock units vest 1/3rd on each of April 6, 2019, April 6, 2022, and April 6, 2025. Pursuant to his restricted stock unit agreement, if Mr. Bakken’s employment terminates due to total disability or death or, prior to April 6, 2019, Mr. Bakken’s employment is terminated by his Entergy employer other than for cause, then he will vest in and be paid the 10,000 restricted stock units that otherwise would have vested had he satisfied the vesting conditions of the restricted stock unit agreement through the next vesting date to occur following his date of total disability, death, or termination other than for cause prior to April 6, 2019 subject, in the case of a termination without cause, to Mr. Bakken timely executing and not revoking a release of claims against Entergy Corporation and its affiliates. In the event of a change in control, the unvested restricted stock units will fully vest upon Mr. Bakken’s termination of employment by his Entergy employer without cause or by Mr. Bakken with good reason during a change in control period (as defined in the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan). Otherwise, if Mr. Bakken voluntarily resigns or is terminated, he would forfeit these units. Pursuant to his restricted stock unit agreement, Mr. Bakken is subject to certain restrictions on his ability to compete with Entergy Corporation and its affiliates or solicit its employees or customers during and for 12 months after his employment with his Entergy employer. In addition, the restricted stock unit agreement limits Mr. Bakken’s ability to disparage Entergy Corporation and its affiliates. In the event of a breach of these restrictions, other than following certain constructive terminations of his employment, Mr. Bakken will forfeit any restricted stock units that are not yet vested and paid, and must repay to Entergy Corporation any shares of Entergy Corporation’s common stock paid to him in respect of the restricted stock units and any amounts he received upon the sale or transfer of any such shares.

13)Mr. Marsh’s 21,100 restricted stock units vest 100% in 2020. Pursuant to his restricted stock unit agreement, any unvested restricted stock units will vest immediately in the event of his termination of employment due to Mr. Marsh’s total disability or death. In the event of a change in control, the units will vest upon termination of Mr. Marsh’s employment by his Entergy employer without cause or by Mr. Marsh with good reason during a change in control period (as defined in the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan). Otherwise, if Mr. Marsh voluntarily resigns or is terminated, he would forfeit these units. Pursuant to his restricted stock unit agreement, Mr. Marsh is subject to certain restrictions on his ability to compete with Entergy Corporation and its affiliates during and for 12 months after his employment with Entergy Corporation, or to solicit its employees or customers during and for 24 months after his employment with it. In addition, the restricted stock unit agreement limits Mr. Marsh’s ability to disparage Entergy Corporation and its affiliates. In the event of a breach of these restrictions, Mr. Marsh will forfeit any restricted stock units that are not yet vested and paid, and must repay to Entergy Corporation any shares of Entergy Corporation’s common stock paid to him in respect of the restricted stock units and any amounts he received upon the sale or transfer of any such shares.

14)Mr. West’s 21,000 restricted stock units vest 100% in 2018. Pursuant to his restricted stock unit agreement, any unvested restricted stock units will vest immediately in the event of a termination other than for cause. In the event of a change in control, the units will vest upon termination of Mr. West’s employment by his Entergy employer without cause or by Mr. West with good reason during a change in control period (as defined in the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan). Otherwise, if Mr. West voluntarily resigns, is terminated for cause, dies, or becomes disabled, he would forfeit these units.

Mr. Denault’s 2006 Retention Agreement
Under the terms of his 2006 retention agreement, Mr. Denault’s employment may be terminated for cause upon Mr. Denault’s:

(a) continuing failure to substantially perform his duties (other than because of physical or mental illness or after he has given notice of termination for good reason) that remains uncured for 30 days after receiving a written notice from the Personnel Committee;
(b) willfully engaging in conduct that is demonstrably and materially injurious to Entergy Corporation;
Entergy; (c) conviction of or entrance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony or other crime that has or may have a material adverse effect on his ability to carry out his duties or upon Entergy Corporation’sEntergy’s reputation;
(d) material violation of any agreement that he has entered into with Entergy Corporation;Entergy; or
(e) unauthorized disclosure of Entergy Corporation’sEntergy’s confidential information.


Mr. Denault may terminate his employment for good reason upon:

(a) the substantial reduction in the nature or status of his duties or responsibilities from those in effect immediately prior to the date of the retention agreement, other than de minimis acts that are remedied after notice from Mr. Denault;
(b) a reduction of 5% or more in his base salary as in effect on the date of the retention agreement;
(c) the relocation of his principal place of employment to a location other than the corporate headquarters;
(d) the failure to continue to allow him to participate in programs or plans providing opportunities for equity awards, stock options, restricted stock, stock appreciation rights, incentive compensation bonus and other plans on a basis not materially less favorable than enjoyed at the time of the retention agreement (other than changes similarly affecting all senior executives);
(e) the failure to continue to allow him to participate in programs or plans with opportunities for benefits not materially less favorable than those enjoyed by him under any of Entergy Corporation’sthe pension, savings, life insurance, medical, health and accident, disability or vacation plans or policies at the time of the retention agreement (other than changes similarly affecting all senior executives); or
(f) any purported termination of his employment not taken in accordance with his retention agreement.


System Executive Continuity PlanAggregate Termination Payments


Termination RelatedThe tables below reflect the amount of compensation each of the NEOs would have received if his or her employment had been terminated as of December 31, 2020 under the various scenarios described above. For purposes of these tables, a stock price of $99.84 was used, which was the closing market price of Entergy Corporation stock on December 31, 2020, the last trading day of the year.

504

Benefits and Payments Upon TerminationVoluntary ResignationFor CauseTermination for Good Reason or Not for CauseRetirementDisabilityDeathTermination Related to a Change in Control
A. Christopher Bakken, III(1)
Severance Payment— — — — — — $3,435,870 
Performance Units(3)
— — — — $895,065 $895,065 $1,086,858 
Stock Options— — — — $552,353 $552,353 $552,353 
Restricted Stock— — — — $764,339 $764,339 $764,339 
Welfare Benefits(5)
— — — — — — $22,248 
Unvested Restricted Stock Units(7)
— — — — — — $1,996,800 
Marcus V. Brown(2)
Severance Payment— — — — — — $3,570,750 
Performance Units(3)
— — — $876,595 $876,595 $876,595 $1,080,668 
Stock Options— — — $547,368 $547,368 $547,368 $547,368 
Restricted Stock— — — — $751,664 $751,664 $751,664 
Welfare Benefits(6)
— — — — — — — 
Leo P. Denault(2)
Severance Payment— — — — — — $10,993,273 
Performance Units(3)(4)
— — $4,512,768 $3,736,712 $4,512,768 $4,512,768 $5,902,641 
Stock Options— — $2,306,895 $2,306,895 $2,306,895 $2,306,895 $2,306,895 
Restricted Stock— — $2,966,300 — $2,966,300 $2,966,300 $2,966,300 
Welfare Benefits(6)
— — — — — — — 
David D. Ellis(1)
Severance Payment— — — — — — $386,219 
Performance Units(3)
— — — — $128,194 $128,194 $216,353 
Stock Options— — — — $33,377 $33,377 $33,377 
Restricted Stock— — — — $87,425 $87,425 $87,425 
Welfare Benefits(5)
— — — — — — $19,908 
Haley R. Fisackerly(2)
Severance Payment— — — — — — $543,541 
Performance Units(3)
— — — 128,194 $128,194 $128,194 $216,353 
Stock Options— — — 91,899 $91,899 $91,899 $91,899 
Restricted Stock— — — 150,174 $150,174 $150,174 $150,174 
Welfare Benefits(6)
— — — — — — — 
Laura R. Landreaux(1)
Severance Payment— — — — — — $457,457 
Performance Units(3)
— — — — $128,194 $128,194 $216,353 
Stock Options— — — — $36,210 $36,210 $36,210 
Restricted Stock— — — — $157,978 $157,978 $157,978 
Welfare Benefits(5)
— — — — — — $19,908 

505

Benefits and Payments Upon TerminationVoluntary ResignationFor CauseTermination for Good Reason or Not for CauseRetirementDisabilityDeathTermination Related to a Change in Control
Andrew S. Marsh(1)
Severance Payment— — — — — — $3,622,500 
Performance Units(3)
— — — — $1,108,224 $1,108,224 $1,146,862 
Stock Options— — — — $676,227 $676,227 $676,227 
Restricted Stock— — — — $908,105 $908,105 $908,105 
Welfare Benefits(5)
— — — — — — $29,862 
Phillip R. May, Jr.(2)
Severance Payment— — — — — — $1,295,309 
Performance Units(3)
— — — $189,796 $189,796 $189,796 $361,121 
Stock Options— — — $137,838 $137,838 $137,838 $137,838 
Restricted Stock— — — — $215,243 $215,243 $215,243 
Welfare Benefits(6)
— — — — — — — 
Sallie T. Rainer(2)
Severance Payment— — — — — — $502,198 
Performance Units(3)
— — — $128,194 $128,194 $128,194 $216,353 
Stock Options— — — $91,899 $91,899 $91,899 $91,899 
Restricted Stock— — — — $150,174 $150,174 $150,174 
Welfare Benefits(6)
— — — — — — — 
Roderick K. West(1)
Severance Payment— — — — — — $3,732,501 
Performance Units(3)
— — — — $950,177 $950,177 $1,108,324 
Stock Options— — — — $580,531 $580,531 $580,531 
Restricted Stock— — — — $811,984 $811,984 $811,984 
Welfare Benefits(5)
— — — — — — $29,862 

1)See “2020 Pension Benefits” for a description of the pension benefits Mr. Bakken, Mr. Ellis, Ms. Landreaux, Mr. Marsh, and Mr. West may receive upon the occurrence of certain termination events.
2)As of December 31, 2020, Mr. Brown, Mr. Denault, Mr. Fisackerly, Mr. May, and Ms. Rainer are retirement eligible and would retire rather than voluntarily resign, and in addition to a Changethe payments and benefits in Control

Entergy Corporation’s Named Executive Officers willthe table, Mr. Brown, Mr. Denault, Mr. Fisackerly, Mr. May, and Ms. Rainer also would be entitled to receive their vested pension benefits under the Entergy Retirement Plan. For a description of these benefits, describedsee “2020 Pension Benefits.”

3)For purposes of the table, in the tables aboveevent of a qualifying termination related to a change in control, each NEO would receive a payment in respect of his performance units for the 2019 – 2021 performance period and a number of performance units for the 2020 – 2022 performance period, calculated as follows.

For the 2019 – 2021 performance period, each NEO would be entitled to receive a single-lump sum payment calculated using the target number of performance units that the officer would have been entitled to receive under the System Executive Continuity Plan2015 EOP with respect to the most recent performance period that precedes and does not include the officer’s date of termination. The value of Mr. Denault’s payments was calculated by multiplying the target performance units for the 2017 – 2019 LTIP performance period (48,700) by the closing price of Entergy Corporation stock on December 31, 2020 ($99.84), which would equal a payment of $4,862,208 for the forfeited performance units for the 2019 – 2021 performance period. The value of Mr. Bakken’s, Mr. Brown’s,
506

Mr. Marsh’s, and Mr. West’s was calculated by multiplying the target performance units for the 2017 – 2019 LTIP performance period (8,300) by the closing price of Entergy Corporation stock on December 31, 2020 ($99.84), which would equal a payment of $828,672 for the forfeited performance units for the 2019 – 2021 performance period. The value of Mr. May’s payment was calculated by multiplying the target performance units for the 2017 – 2019 LTIP performance period (3,150) by the closing price of Entergy Corporation stock on December 31, 2020 ($99.84), which would equal a payment of $314,496 for the forfeited performance units for the 2019 – 2021 performance period. The value of the payments for the other NEOs was calculated by multiplying the target performance units for the 2017 – 2019 LTIP performance period (1,850) by the closing price of Entergy Corporation stock on December 31, 2020 ($99.84), which would equal a payment of $184,704 for the forfeited performance units for the 2019 – 2021 performance period.

For the 2020 – 2022 performance period, in the event of a qualifying termination related to a change in control, each NEO would be entitled to receive a number of shares of Entergy Corporation stock equal to the greater of (1) the target number of performance units subject to the 2020 – 2022 performance unit agreement or (2) the number of performance units that would vest under the 2020 – 2022 performance unit agreement calculated based on Entergy Corporation’s actual performance through the NEO’s termination date, in either case pro-rated based on the portion of the performance period that occurs through the termination date. For purposes of the table, the values of the performance unit awards for the 2020 – 2022 performance period for each NEO were calculated as follows, based on the assumption that the target number of performance units was the greater number:

Mr. Bakken: 2,586 (12/36*7,758) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $258,186

Mr. Brown: 2,524 (12/36*7,571) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $251,996

Mr. Denault: 10,421 (12/36*31,263) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $1,040,433

Mr. Ellis: 317 (12/36*950) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $31,649

Mr. Fisackerly: 317 (12/36*950) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $31,649

Ms. Landreaux: 317 (12/36*950) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $31,649

Mr. May: 467 (12/36*1,400) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $46,625

Mr. Marsh: 3,187 (12/36*9,560) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $318,190

Ms. Rainer: 317 (12/36*950) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $31,649

Mr. West: 2,801 (12/36*8,401) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $279,652

The total values of the single sum payment for the 2019 – 2021 performance period and the performance units award for the 2020 – 2022 performance period upon a change in control for each NEO is as follows:

Mr. Bakken: $828,672 + $258,186 = $1,086,858

Mr. Brown: $828,672 + $251,996 = $1,080,668

Mr. Denault: $4,862,208 + $1,040,433 = $5,902,641

Mr. Ellis: $184,704 + $31,649 = $216,353

Mr. Fisackerly: $184,704 + $31,649 = $216,353

Ms. Landreaux: $184,704 + $31,649 = $216,353

507

Mr. May: $314,496 + $46,625 = $361,121

Mr. Marsh: $828,672 + $318,190 = $1,146,862

Ms. Rainer: $184,704 + $31,649 = $216,353

Mr. West: $828,672 + $279,652 = $1,108,324

For purposes of the table, the values of the awards payable in the event of retirement in the case of Mr. Denault, Mr. Brown, Mr. Fisackerly, Mr. May, or Ms. Rainer or upon death or disability, other than Mr. Denault, for each NEO were calculated as follows:
Mr. Bakken’s:

2019 – 2021 LTIP Performance Period: 6,379 (24/36*9,568) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $636,879
2020 – 2022 LTIP Performance Period: 2,586 (12/36*7,758) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $258,186
Total: $895,065

Mr. Brown’s:

2019 – 2021 LTIP Performance Period: 6,256 (24/36*9,383) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $$624,599
2020 – 2022 LTIP Performance Period: 2,524 (12/36*7,571) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $251,996
Total: $876,595

Mr. Denault’s:
2019 – 2021 LTIP Performance Period: 27,006 (24/36*40,508) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $2,696,279
2020 – 2022 LTIP Performance Period: 10,421 (12/36*31,263) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $1,040,433
Total: $3,736,712

Mr. Marsh’s:

2019 – 2021 LTIP Performance Period: 7,913 (24/36*11,869) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $790,034
2020 – 2022 LTIP Performance Period: 3,187 (12/36*9,560) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $318,190
Total: $1,108,224
Mr. May’s:

2019 – 2021 LTIP Performance Period: 1,434 (24/36*2,150) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $143,171
2020 – 2022 LTIP Performance Period: 467 (12/36*1,400) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $46,625
Total: $189,796
Mr. Ellis’s, Mr. Fisackerly’s, Ms. Landreaux’s and Ms. Rainer’s:
2019 – 2021 LTIP Performance Period: 967 (24/36*1,450) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $96,545
508

2020 – 2022 LTIP Performance Period: 317 (12/36*950) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $31,649
Total: $128,194

Mr. West’s:

2019 – 2021 LTIP Performance Period: 6,716 (24/36*10,073) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $670,525
2020 – 2022 LTIP Performance Period: 2,801 (12/36*8,401) performance units at target, assuming a stock price of $99.84 = $279,652
Total: $950,177

4)For purposes of the table, the value of Mr. Denault’s retention payment was calculated by taking an average of the target performance units from the 2016 - 2018 LTIP (41,700) and from the 2017 - 2019 LTIP (48,700). This average number of units (45,200) multiplied by the closing price of Entergy stock on December 31, 2020 ($99.84) would equal a payment of $4,512,768.

5)Pursuant to the SERP, in the event of a termination related to a change in control, ifMr. Bakken, Mr. Marsh, and Mr. West would be eligible to receive Entergy-subsidized COBRA benefits for 18 months and Mr. Ellis and Ms. Landreaux would be eligible to receive Entergy-subsidized COBRA benefits for 12 months.

6)Upon retirement, Mr. Brown, Mr. Denault, Mr. Fisackerly, Mr. May, and Ms. Rainer would be eligible for retiree medical and dental benefits, the same as all other retirees.

7)Mr. Bakken’s 20,000 restricted stock units vest in two equal installments on April 6, 2022 and April 6, 2025. In the event of a change in control, occurs and their employment is terminated by their Entergy employer other than for cause or if they terminate their employment for good reason, in each case withinthe unvested restricted stock units will fully vest upon Mr. Bakken’s Qualifying Termination during a period beginning on the occurrence of a potential change in control period. Pursuant to his restricted stock unit agreement, Mr. Bakken is subject to certain restrictions on his ability to compete with Entergy and ending 24its affiliates or solicit its employees or customers during and for 12 months followingafter his employment with his Entergy employer. In addition, the effective daterestricted stock unit agreement limits Mr. Bakken’s ability to disparage Entergy and its affiliates. In the event of a change in control.

A change in control includes thebreach of these restrictions, other than following events:

the purchasecertain constructive terminations of 30% or more of eitherhis employment, Mr. Bakken will forfeit any restricted stock units that are not yet vested and paid, and must repay to Entergy Corporation’s common stock or the combined voting power of Entergy Corporation’s voting securities;
the merger or consolidation of Entergy Corporation (unless its Board members constitute at least a majority of the board members of the surviving entity);
the liquidation, dissolution, or sale of all or substantially all of Entergy Corporation’s assets; or
a change in the composition of Entergy Corporation’s Board such that, during any two-year period, the individuals serving at the beginning of the period no longer constitute a majority of Entergy Corporation’s Board at the end of the period.


A potential change in control includes the following events:

Entergy Corporation or an affiliate enters into an agreement the consummation of which would constitute a change in control;
the Entergy Corporation Board adopts resolutions determining that, for purposes of the System Executive Continuity Plan, a potential change in control has occurred;
a System Company or other person or entity publicly announces an intention to take actions that would constitute a change in control; or
any person or entity becomes the beneficial owner (directly or indirectly) of outstanding shares of Entergy Corporation’s common stock constituting 20% or morepaid to him in respect of the voting power or value of Entergy Corporation’s outstanding common stock.

A Named Executive Officer’s employment may be terminated for cause under the System Executive Continuity Plan if he or she:

willfully and continuously fails to substantially perform his or her duties after receiving a 30-day written demand for performance from Entergy Corporation’s Board;
engages in conduct that is materially injurious to Entergy Corporation or any of its subsidiaries;
is convicted or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a felony or other crime that materially and adversely affects his or her ability to perform his or her duties or Entergy Corporation’s reputation;
materially violates any agreement with Entergy Corporation or any of its subsidiaries; or
discloses any of Entergy Corporation’s confidential information without authorization.

A Named Executive Officer may terminate his or her employment with his or her Entergy employer for good reason under the System Executive Continuity Plan if, without his or her consent:

the nature or status of his or her duties and responsibilities is substantially altered or reduced compared to the period prior to the change in control;
his or her salary is reduced by 5% or more;
he or she is required to be based outside of the continental United States at somewhere other than his or her primary work location prior to the change in control;
any of his or her compensation plans are discontinued without an equitable replacement;
his or her benefits or number of vacation days are substantially reduced; or
his or her Entergy employer purports to terminate his or her employment other than in accordance with the System Executive Continuity Plan.

In addition to participation in the System Executive Continuity Plan, benefits already accrued under the System Executive Retirement Plan, Pension Equalization Plan, and Cash Balance Equalization Plan, if any, will become fully vested if the executive is involuntarily terminated without cause or the executive terminates his or her employment for good reason within two years after the occurrence of a change in control. Any awards granted under the Equity Ownership Plans will become fully vested if the executive is involuntarily terminated without cause or terminates employment for good reason within two years after the occurrence of a change in control.

Under certain circumstances described below, the payments and benefits received by a Named Executive Officer pursuant to the System Executive Continuity Plan may be forfeited and, in certain cases, subject to repayment. Benefits are no longer payable under the System Executive Continuity Plan, and unvested performance units under the Performance Unit Program are subject to forfeiture, if the executive:

accepts employment with Entergy Corporation or any of its subsidiaries;
elects to receive the benefits of another severance or separation program;
removes, copies or fails to return any property belonging to Entergy Corporation or any of its subsidiaries;
discloses non-public data or information concerning Entergy Corporation or any of its subsidiaries; or
violates his or her non-compete provision, which generally runs for two years but extends to three years if permissible under applicable law.

Furthermore, if the executive discloses non-public data or information concerning Entergy Corporation or any of its subsidiaries or violates his or her non-compete provision, he or she will be required to repay any benefits previously received under the System Executive Continuity Plan.

Voluntary Resignation

If a Named Executive Officer voluntarily resigns from his or her Entergy employer:

all unvested stock options, shares of restricted stock and restricted stock units as well asand any perquisites to whichamounts he received upon the sale or she is entitled as an officer are forfeited;transfer of any such shares.
incentive payments under any outstanding performance periods under the Long-Term Performance Unit Program or the Annual Incentive Plan are forfeited; provided however, if an officer resigns after the completion of an Annual Incentive Plan or Long-Term Performance Unit Program performance period, he or she could receive a payout under the Long-Term Performance Unit Program based on the outcome of the performance period and could, at Entergy Corporation’s discretion, receive an annual incentive payment under the Annual Incentive Plan;
any vested stock options held by the officer as of the separation date will expire the earlier of ten years from date of grant or 90 days from the last day of active employment; and
he or she is entitled to all vested accrued benefits and compensation as of the separation date, including qualified pension benefits (if any) and other post-employment benefits on terms consistent with those generally available to other salaried employees.

Termination for Cause

If a Named Executive Officer’s employment is terminated for “cause” (as defined in the System Executive Continuity Plan and described above under “Termination Related to a Change in Control”), he or she is generally entitled to the same compensation and separation benefits described above under “Voluntary Resignation,” except that all options are no longer exercisable.

Retirement

Upon a Named Executive Officer’s retirement:

the annual incentive payment under the Annual Incentive Plan is generally pro-rated based on the actual number of days employed during the performance year in which the retirement date occurs, subject to negative discretion that may be applied to reduce or disallow the payment; payments are delivered at the conclusion of the annual period, consistent with the timing of payments to active participants in the Annual Incentive Plan;
payments under the Long-Term Performance Unit Program for those retiring with a minimum of 12 months of participation are pro-rated based on the actual full months of participation in each outstanding performance period in which the retirement date occurs, and payments are delivered at the conclusion of each performance period, consistent with the timing of payments to active participants in the Long-Term Performance Unit Program;
unvested stock options issued under the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan vest on the retirement date and expire ten years from the grant date of the options;
unvested stock options issued under the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan vest on the retirement date and expire the earlier of five years from the grant date of the options or the original term of ten years;
any unvested restricted stock and restricted stock units held by the executive upon his retirement are forfeited; and
he or she is generally entitled to all vested accrued benefits and compensation as of the separation date, including qualified pension benefits and other post-employment benefits consistent with those generally available to salaried employees.

Disability

If a Named Executive Officer’s employment is terminated due to disability, he or she generally is entitled to the same compensation and separation benefits described above under “Retirement,” except that unvested restricted stock and restricted stock units may be subject to specific disability benefits as noted, where applicable, in the tables above.

Death

If a Named Executive Officer dies while actively employed by an Entergy employer, he or she generally is entitled to the same compensation and separation benefits described above under “Retirement,” except that unvested restricted stock and restricted stock units may be subject to specific death benefits as noted, where applicable, in the tables above. 

Pay Ratio


As required by Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the following disclosure is being provided about the relationship of the annual total compensation of the employees of each of the Utility operating companies to the annual total compensation of their respective Presidents and Chief Executive Officers. The pay ratio estimate for each of the Utility operating companies has been calculated in a manner consistent with Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K.


Identification of Median Employee


For each of the Utility operating companies, October 6, 20172, 2020 was selected as the date on which to determine the median employee. This date is different from the date used in the prior year; however, the methodology used to determine the date is consistent with that used in the prior year. Both dates correspond to the first day of the three month period prior to fiscal year-end for which information can be obtained about employees and all subsidiaries have the same number of pay cycles. To identify the median employee from each of the Utility operating companies’ employee population base, all compensation included in Box 5 of Form W-2 was considered with all before-tax deductions added back to this compensation (Box(“Box 5 Compensation)Compensation”). For purposes of determining the median employee of each Utility operating company, Box 5 Compensation was selected as it is believed it isto be representative of the compensation received by the employees of each respective Utility operating company and is readily available.
509

The calculation of annual total compensation of the median employee for each Utility operating company is the same calculation used to determine total compensation for purposes of the 20172020 Summary Compensation Table with respect to each of the Named Executive Officers.NEOs.


Entergy Arkansas Ratio


For 2017,2020,
Mr. Riley’sThe median of the annual total compensation of all of EntergyArkansas’semployees, other than Ms. Landreaux, was $135,370.
Ms. Landreaux’s annual total compensation, as reported in the Total column of the 20172020 Summary Compensation Table was $1,353,719.$1,150,511.
The annual total compensation of the median employee was $127,560.
Based on this information, the ratio of the annual total compensation of Mr. RileyMrs. Landreaux to the median employeeof the annual total compensation of all employees is estimated to be 11:8:1.


Entergy Louisiana Ratio


For 2017,2020,
The median of the annual total compensation of all of Entergy Louisiana’s employees, other than Mr. May, was $131,155.
Mr. May’s annual total compensation, as reported in the Total column of the 20172020 Summary Compensation Table, was $1,564,954.$2,257,961.
The annual total compensation of the median employee was $144,954.
Based on this information, the ratio of the annual total compensation of Mr. May to the median employeeof the annual total compensation of all employees is estimated to be 11:17:1.


Entergy Mississippi Ratio


For 2017,2020,
The median of the annual total compensation of all of Entergy Mississippi’s employees, other than Mr. Fisackerly, was $111,238.
Mr. Fisackerly’s annual total compensation, as reported in the Total column of the 20172020 Summary Compensation Table, was $1,207,343.$1,803,939.
The annual total compensation of the median employee was $112,110.
Based on this information, the ratio of the annual total compensation of Mr. Fisackerly to the median employeeof the annual total compensation of all employees is estimated to be 11:16:1.

Entergy New Orleans Ratio


For 2017,2020,
The median of the annual total compensation of all of EntergyNew Orleans’semployees, other than Mr. Rice’sEllis, was $150,102.
Mr. Ellis’s annual total compensation, as reported in the Total column of the 20172020 Summary Compensation Table was $824,111.$804,810.
The annual total compensation of the median employee was $91,346.
Based on this information, the ratio of the annual total compensation of Mr. RiceEllis to the median employeeof the annual total compensation of all employees is estimated to be 9:5:1.

Entergy Texas Ratio


For 2017,2020,
The median of the annual total compensation of all of Entergy Texas’s employees, other than Ms. Rainer, was $160,680.
Ms. Rainer’s annual total compensation, as reported in the Total column of the 20172020 Summary Compensation Table, was $1,200,260.$1,543,383.
The annual total compensation of the median employee was $129,877.
Based on this information, the ratio of the annual total compensation of Ms. Rainer to the median employeeof the annual total compensation of all employees is estimated to be 9:10:1.

510


Item 12.  Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management


Entergy Corporation owns 100% of the outstanding common stock of registrants Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi,registrant Entergy Texas and indirectly 100% of the outstanding common membership interests of registrantregistrants Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.  The information with respect to persons known by Entergy Corporation to be beneficial owners of more than 5% of Entergy Corporation’s outstanding common stock is included under the heading “Entergy Share Ownership - Beneficial Owners of More Than Five Percent”Percent of Entergy Common Stock” in the Entergy Corporation Proxy Statement, which information is incorporated herein by reference.  The registrants know of no contractual arrangements that may, at a subsequent date, result in a change in control of any of the registrants.


The following table sets forth the beneficial ownership of common stock of Entergy Corporation and stock-based units as of January 31, 20182021 for all non-employee directors and Named Executive Officers.NEOs.  Unless otherwise noted, each person had sole voting and investment power over the number of shares of common stock and stock-based units of Entergy Corporation set forth across from his or her name.



511

Name 
Shares (1)(2)
 Options Exercisable Within 60 Days 
Stock Units (3)
Name
Shares (1)(2)
Options Exercisable Within 60 Days
Stock Units (3)
Entergy Corporation      Entergy Corporation   
A. Christopher Bakken, III** 10,710
 12,533
 
A. Christopher Bakken, III**18,115 35,399 — 
Maureen S. Bateman* 22,716
 
 
Marcus V. Brown** 27,803
 130,066
 
Marcus V. Brown**38,813 34,930 — 
John R. Burbank*John R. Burbank*3,353 — 563 
Patrick J. Condon* 4,460
 
 
Patrick J. Condon*9,333 — — 
Leo P. Denault*** 133,457
 565,133
 
Leo P. Denault***324,528 899,634 — 
Kirkland H. Donald* 5,736
 
 1,389
Kirkland H. Donald*8,590 — 3,668 
Brian W. Ellis*Brian W. Ellis*64 
Philip L. Frederickson* 2,775
 
 805
Philip L. Frederickson*7,889 — 805 
Alexis M. Herman* 12,581
 
 
Alexis M. Herman*14,780 — — 
Donald C. Hintz* 15,096
 
 3,942
M. Elise Hyland*M. Elise Hyland*1,663 563
Stuart L. Levenick* 18,047
 
 
Stuart L. Levenick*22,920 — — 
Blanche L. Lincoln* 11,004
 
 
Blanche L. Lincoln*16,654 — — 
Andrew S. Marsh** 60,425
 166,766
 
Andrew S. Marsh**90,482 281,147 — 
Karen A. Puckett* 4,460
 
 
Karen A. Puckett*9,333 — — 
W. J. Tauzin* 17,809
 
 
Roderick K. West** 42,475
 114,066
 
Roderick K. West**33,757 37,517 — 
All directors and executive officers as a group (19 persons) 444,591
 1,112,495
 6,136
All directors and executive officers as a group (20 persons)All directors and executive officers as a group (20 persons)680,178 1,429,697 5,599 
      
Entergy Arkansas  
  
  
Entergy Arkansas   
A. Christopher Bakken, III** 10,710
 12,533
 
A. Christopher Bakken, III**18,115 35,399 — 
Marcus V. Brown** 27,803
 130,066
 
Marcus V. Brown**38,813 34,930 — 
Leo P. Denault** 133,457
 565,133
 
Leo P. Denault**324,528 899,634 — 
Andrew S. Marsh*** 60,425
 166,766
 
Andrew S. Marsh***90,482 281,147 — 
Richard C. Riley*** 11,169
 16,967
 
Laura R. Landreaux***Laura R. Landreaux***5,678 4,833 — 
Roderick K. West*** 42,475
 114,066
 
Roderick K. West***33,757 37,517 — 
All directors and executive officers as a group (10 persons) 341,076
 1,129,462
 
All directors and executive officers as a group (8 persons)All directors and executive officers as a group (8 persons)556,160 1,390,535 — 
      
Entergy Louisiana      Entergy Louisiana
A. Christopher Bakken, III** 10,710
 12,533
 
A. Christopher Bakken, III**18,115 35,399 — 
Marcus V. Brown** 27,803
 130,066
 
Marcus V. Brown**38,813 34,930 — 
Leo P. Denault** 133,457
 565,133
 
Leo P. Denault**324,528 899,634 — 
Andrew S. Marsh*** 60,425
 166,766
 
Andrew S. Marsh***90,482 281,147 — 
Phillip R. May, Jr.*** 18,203
 47,100
 12
Phillip R. May, Jr.***23,383 8,833 13 
Roderick K. West*** 42,475
 114,066
 
Roderick K. West***33,757 37,517 — 
All directors and executive officers as a group (10 persons) 348,110
 1,159,595
 12
All directors and executive officers as a group (8 persons)All directors and executive officers as a group (8 persons)573,865 1,394,535 13 



512

Name 
Shares (1)(2)
 Options Exercisable Within 60 Days 
Stock Units (3)
Name
Shares (1)(2)
Options Exercisable Within 60 Days
Stock Units (3)
Entergy Mississippi      Entergy Mississippi
Marcus V. Brown** 27,803
 130,066
 
Marcus V. Brown**38,813 34,930 — 
Leo P. Denault** 133,457
 565,133
 
Leo P. Denault**324,528 899,634 — 
Haley R. Fisackerly*** 6,605
 21,933
 
Haley R. Fisackerly***7,760 5,700 — 
Andrew S. Marsh*** 60,425
 166,766
 
Andrew S. Marsh***90,482 281,147 — 
Roderick K. West*** 42,475
 114,066
 
Roderick K. West***33,757 37,517 — 
All directors and executive officers as a group (9 persons) 325,802
 1,121,895
 
All directors and executive officers as a group (7 persons)All directors and executive officers as a group (7 persons)540,127 1,356,003 — 
      
Entergy New Orleans      Entergy New Orleans   
Marcus V. Brown** 27,803
 130,066
 
Marcus V. Brown**38,813 34,930 — 
Leo P. Denault** 133,457
 565,133
 
Leo P. Denault**324,528 899,634 — 
David D. Ellis***David D. Ellis***3,332 4,199 — 
Andrew S. Marsh*** 60,425
 166,766
 
Andrew S. Marsh***90,482 281,147 — 
Charles L. Rice, Jr.*** 5,855
 10,266
 
Roderick K. West*** 42,475
 114,066
 
Roderick K. West***33,757 37,517 — 
All directors and executive officers as a group (9 persons) 325,052
 1,110,228
 
All directors and executive officers as a group (7 persons)All directors and executive officers as a group (7 persons)535,699 1,354,502 — 
      
Entergy Texas      Entergy Texas   
Marcus V. Brown** 27,803
 130,066
 
Marcus V. Brown**38,813 34,930 — 
Leo P. Denault** 133,457
 565,133
 
Leo P. Denault**324,528 899,634 — 
Andrew S. Marsh*** 60,425
 166,766
 
Andrew S. Marsh***90,482 281,147 — 
Sallie T. Rainer*** 7,884
 14,866
 
Sallie T. Rainer***13,437 12,566 — 
Roderick K. West*** 42,475
 114,066
 
Roderick K. West***33,757 37,517 — 
All directors and executive officers as a group (9 persons) 327,081
 1,114,828
 
All directors and executive officers as a group (7 persons)All directors and executive officers as a group (7 persons)545,804 1,362,869 — 

*Director of the respective Companycompany
**Named Executive OfficerNEO of the respective Companycompany
***Director and Named Executive OfficerNEO of the respective Companycompany

(1)The number of shares of Entergy Corporation common stock owned by each individual and by all non-employee directors and executive officers as a group does not exceed one percent of the outstanding shares of Entergy Corporation common stock.
(2)For the non-employee directors, the balances include phantom units that are issued under the Service Recognition Program. All non-employee directors are credited with phantom units for each year of service on the Entergy Corporation Board. These phantom units do not have voting rights, accrue dividends, and will be settled in shares of Entergy Corporation common stock following the non-employee director’s separation from the Board.
(3)Represents the balances of phantom units each executive holds under the defined contribution restoration plan and the deferral provisions of the Equity Ownership Plan.  These units will be paid out in either Entergy Corporation Common Stock or cash equivalent to the value of one share of Entergy Corporation common stock per unit on the date of payout, including accrued dividends.  The deferral period is determined by the individual and is at least two years from the award of the bonus.  Messrs. Donald, Hintz, and Frederickson have deferred receipt of some of their quarterly stock grants.  The deferred shares will be settled in cash in an amount equal to the market value of Entergy Corporation common stock at the end of the deferral period.



(1)The number of shares of Entergy Corporation common stock owned by each individual and by all non-employee directors and executive officers as a group does not exceed one percent of the outstanding shares of Entergy Corporation common stock.
(2)For the non-employee directors, the balances include phantom units that are issued under the Service Recognition Program. All non-employee directors are credited with phantom units for each year of service on the Entergy Corporation Board. These phantom units do not have voting rights or accrue dividends, and will be settled in shares of Entergy Corporation common stock following the non-employee director’s separation from the Board.
(3)Represents the balances of phantom units each director or executive holds under the defined contribution restoration plan and the deferral provisions of Entergy Corporation’s equity ownership plans.  These units will be paid out in either Entergy Corporation Common Stock or cash equivalent to the value of one share of Entergy Corporation common stock per unit on the date of payout, including accrued dividends.  The deferral period is determined by the individual and is at least two years from the award of the bonus.  Messrs. Donald and Frederickson have deferred receipt of some of their quarterly stock grants.  The deferred shares will be settled in cash in an amount equal to the market value of Entergy Corporation common stock at the end of the deferral period.

513

Equity Compensation Plan Information


The following table summarizes the equity compensation plan information as of December 31, 2017.2020. Information is included for equity compensation plans approved by the stockholders andshareholders. There are no shares authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans not approved by the stockholders.shareholders.

PlanNumber of Securities to be Issued Upon Exercise of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights (a)
Weighted Average Exercise Price (b)(2)
Number of Securities Remaining Available for Future Issuance (excluding securities reflected in column (a))(c)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders (1)
2,399,379 $89.636,108,451 
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders— — — 
Total2,399,379 $89.636,108,451 

(1)Includes the 2007 Equity Ownership Plan, the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan, the 2015 Equity Plan, and the 2019 Omnibus Incentive Plan.  The 2007 Equity Ownership Plan was approved by Entergy Corporation shareholders on May 12, 2006, and only applied to awards granted between January 1, 2007 and May 5, 2011. The 2011 Equity Ownership Plan was approved by Entergy Corporation shareholders on May 6, 2011, and only applied to awards granted between May 6, 2011 and May 7, 2015.  The 2015 Equity Plan was approved by Entergy Corporation shareholders on May 8, 2015, and only applied to awards granted between May 8, 2015 and May 3, 2019. The 2019 Omnibus Incentive Plan was approved by the Entergy Corporation shareholders on May 3, 2019, and 7,300,000 shares of Entergy Corporation common stock can be issued from the 2019 Omnibus Incentive Plan, with all shares available for equity-based incentive awards. The 2007 Equity Ownership Plan, the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan, the 2015 Equity Plan, and the 2019 Omnibus Incentive Plan (collectively, the “Plans”) are administered by the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors (other than with respect to awards granted to non-employee directors, which awards are administered by the entire Board of Directors).  Eligibility under the Plans is limited to the non-employee directors and to the officers and employees of an Entergy employer or an affiliate of Entergy Corporation.  The Plans provide for the issuance of stock options, restricted stock, equity awards (units whose value is related to the value of shares of the common stock but do not represent actual shares of common stock), performance awards (performance shares or units valued by reference to shares of common stock or performance units valued by reference to financial measures or property other than common stock), restricted stock unit awards, and other stock-based awards.
(2)The weighted average exercise price reported in this column does not include outstanding performance awards.
514
Plan Number of Securities to be Issued Upon Exercise of Outstanding Options (a) Weighted Average Exercise Price (b) Number of Securities Remaining Available for Future Issuance (excluding securities reflected in column (a))(c)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders (1)
 5,164,854
 $83.26 3,498,788
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders(2)
 
 
 
Total 5,164,854
 $83.26 3,498,788


(1)Includes the 2007 Equity Ownership Plan, the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan, and the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan.  The 2007 Equity Ownership Plan was approved by Entergy Corporation shareholders on May 12, 2006, and only applied to awards granted between January 1, 2007 and May 5, 2011. The 2011 Equity Ownership Plan was approved by Entergy Corporation shareholders on May 6, 2011, and only applied to awards granted between May 6, 2011 and May 7, 2015.  The 2015 Equity Ownership Plan was approved by Entergy Corporation shareholders on May 8, 2015, and 6,900,000 shares of Entergy Corporation common stock can be issued from the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan, with no more than 1,500,000 shares available for incentive stock option grants.  The 2015 Plan applies to awards granted on or after May 8, 2015. The 2007 Equity Ownership Plan, the 2011 Equity Ownership Plan, and the 2015 Equity Ownership Plan (the “Plans”) are administered by the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors (other than with respect to awards granted to non-employee directors, which awards are administered by the entire Board of Directors).  Eligibility under the Plans is limited to the non-employee directors and to the officers and employees of an Entergy employer and any corporation 80% or more of whose stock (based on voting power) or value is owned, directly or indirectly, by Entergy Corporation.  The Plans provide for the issuance of stock options, restricted stock, equity awards (units whose value is related to the value of shares of the common stock but do not represent actual shares of common stock), performance awards (performance shares or units valued by reference to shares of common stock or performance units valued by reference to financial measures or property other than common stock), restricted stock unit awards, and other stock-based awards.
(2)Entergy has a Board-approved stock-based compensation plan. However, effective May 9, 2003, the Board has directed that no further awards be issued under that plan. As of December 31, 2017, all options outstanding under the plan were either exercised or expired.


Item 13.  Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions and Director Independence


For information regarding certain relationship, related transactions and director independence of Entergy Corporation, see the Entergy Corporation Proxy Statement under the headings “Corporate Governance at Entergy - Director Independence” and “Corporate Governance at Entergy - Corporate Governance Policies - Our Transactions withReview and Approval of Related Party Persons Policy.Transactions.


Entergy Corporation’s Board of Directors has adopted a written policies and procedures for the review, approval or ratification ofRelated Party Transaction Approval Policy that applies to any transaction involving an amount in excessor series of $120,000transactions in which anyEntergy Corporation or a subsidiary is a participant:

When the amount involved exceeds $120,000; and
When a Related Party (an Entergy Corporation director or executive officer, of Entergy Corporation, any nominee for director, orany shareholder owning an excess of 5% of the total equity of Entergy Corporation and any immediate family member of the foregoingany such person) has a direct or will have aindirect material interest in such transaction(s) (other than solely as contemplateda result of being a director or a less than 10% beneficial owner of another entity).
The policy is administered by Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K (“Related Person Transactions”). Under these policies and procedures, Entergy Corporation’s Corporate Governance CommitteeCommittee. The committee will consider relevant facts and circumstance in determining whether or not to approve or ratify such a subcommittee of its Board of Directors consisting entirely of independent directors reviews the transaction, and either approveswill approve or rejects the transaction after taking into account the following factors:

Whether the proposed transaction is on termsratify only those transactions that are, at least as favorable to Entergy Corporation as those achievable with an unaffiliated third party;
Size of the transaction and amount of consideration;
Nature of the interest;
Whether the transaction involves a conflict of interest;
Whether the transaction involves services available from unaffiliated third parties; and
Any other factors thatin the Corporate Governance Committee’s judgment, appropriate or desirable under the circumstances. The Corporate Governance Committee has determined that certain types of transactions do not create or subcommittee deems relevant.

The policy does not apply to (a)involve a direct or indirect material interest, including (i) compensation and related personparty transactions involving a director or an executive officer solely resulting from that person’s service as a director or employment with Entergy Corporation so long as the compensation is approved by the Entergy Corporation Board of Directors (or an appropriate committee), (b); (ii) transactions involving public utility services at rates or charges fixed in conformity with law or governmental authority,authority; or (c) any other categories of transactions currently or(iii) all business relationships between Entergy Corporation and a Related Party made in the future excluded fromordinary course of business on terms and conditions generally available in the reporting requirements of Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K.

Related Party Transactions
Sincemarketplace an in accordance with applicable law. To Entergy Corporation’s knowledge, since January 1, 2017,2020, neither Entergy Corporation nor any of its affiliates has participated in any Related Person Transaction.Party transaction.



515

Item 14.  Principal Accountant Fees and Services(Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)


Aggregate fees billed to Entergy Corporation (consolidated), Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy for the years ended December 31, 20172020 and 20162019 by Deloitte & Touche LLP were as follows:


 20202019
Entergy Corporation (consolidated)  
Audit Fees$9,323,550 $8,710,000 
Audit-Related Fees (a)786,000 775,000 
Total audit and audit-related fees10,109,550 9,485,000 
Tax Fees— — 
All Other Fees (b)183,060 31,835 
Total Fees (c)$10,292,610 $9,516,835 
Entergy Arkansas  
Audit Fees$1,137,507 $1,015,125 
Audit-Related Fees (a)— — 
Total audit and audit-related fees1,137,507 1,015,125 
Tax Fees— — 
All Other Fees— — 
Total Fees (c)$1,137,507 $1,015,125 
Entergy Louisiana  
Audit Fees$2,302,851 $1,871,918 
Audit-Related Fees (a)360,000 360,000 
Total audit and audit-related fees2,662,851 2,231,918 
Tax Fees— — 
All Other Fees— — 
Total Fees (c)$2,662,851 $2,231,918 
Entergy Mississippi  
Audit Fees$982,507 $1,005,125 
Audit-Related Fees (a)— — 
Total audit and audit-related fees982,507 1,005,125 
Tax Fees— — 
All Other Fees— — 
Total Fees (c)$982,507 $1,005,125 

516

20202019
2017 2016
Entergy Corporation (consolidated)   
Entergy New OrleansEntergy New Orleans  
Audit Fees
$8,401,895
 
$8,932,000
Audit Fees$1,027,507 $950,125 
Audit-Related Fees (a)875,000
 865,000
Audit-Related Fees (a)— — 
Total audit and audit-related fees9,276,895
 9,797,000
Total audit and audit-related fees1,027,507 950,125 
Tax Fees
 
Tax Fees— — 
All Other Fees
 
All Other Fees— — 
Total Fees (b)
$9,276,895
 
$9,797,000
Entergy Arkansas   
Total Fees (c)Total Fees (c)$1,027,507 $950,125 
Entergy TexasEntergy Texas  
Audit Fees
$1,018,860
 
$1,056,881
Audit Fees$1,258,220 $1,165,125 
Audit-Related Fees (a)
 
Audit-Related Fees (a)— — 
Total audit and audit-related fees1,018,860
 1,056,881
Total audit and audit-related fees1,258,220 1,165,125 
Tax Fees
 
Tax Fees— — 
All Other Fees
 
All Other Fees— — 
Total Fees (b)
$1,018,860
 
$1,056,881
Entergy Louisiana   
Total Fees (c)Total Fees (c)$1,258,220 $1,165,125 
System EnergySystem Energy  
Audit Fees
$1,887,719
 
$2,138,762
Audit Fees$1,017,507 $930,125 
Audit-Related Fees (a)500,000
 450,000
Audit-Related Fees (a)— — 
Total audit and audit-related fees2,387,719
 2,588,762
Total audit and audit-related fees1,017,507 930,125 
Tax Fees
 
Tax Fees— — 
All Other Fees
 
All Other Fees— — 
Total Fees (b)
$2,387,719
 
$2,588,762
Entergy Mississippi   
Audit Fees
$933,860
 
$971,881
Audit-Related Fees (a)
 
Total audit and audit-related fees933,860
 971,881
Tax Fees
 
All Other Fees
 
Total Fees (b)
$933,860
 
$971,881
Total Fees (c)Total Fees (c)$1,017,507 $930,125 


(a)Includes fees for employee benefit plan audits, consultation on financial accounting and reporting, and other attestation services.
(b)Includes fees for cybersecurity assessment and license fee for accounting research tool.
(c)100% of fees paid in 2020 and 2019 were pre-approved by the Entergy Corporation Audit Committee.
517

 2017 2016
Entergy New Orleans   
Audit Fees
$953,860
 
$1,056,881
Audit-Related Fees (a)
 
Total audit and audit-related fees953,860
 1,056,881
Tax Fees
 
All Other Fees
 
Total Fees (b)
$953,860
 
$1,056,881
Entergy Texas   
Audit Fees
$1,093,860
 
$1,076,881
Audit-Related Fees (a)
 
Total audit and audit-related fees1,093,860
 1,076,881
Tax Fees
 
All Other Fees
 
Total Fees (b)
$1,093,860
 
$1,076,881
System Energy   
Audit Fees
$868,860
 
$861,881
Audit-Related Fees (a)
 
Total audit and audit-related fees868,860
 861,881
Tax Fees
 
All Other Fees
 
Total Fees (b)
$868,860
 
$861,881

(a)Includes fees for employee benefit plan audits, consultation on financial accounting and reporting, and other attestation services.
(b)100% of fees paid in 2017 and 2016 were pre-approved by the Entergy Corporation Audit Committee.

Entergy Audit Committee Guidelines for Pre-approval of Independent Auditor Services


The Audit Committee has adopted the following guidelines regarding the engagement of Entergy’s independent auditor to perform services for Entergy:


1.The independent auditor will provide the Audit Committee, for approval, an annual engagement letter outlining the scope of services proposed to be performed during the fiscal year, including audit services and other permissible non-audit services (e.g. audit-related services, tax services, and all other services).
2.For other permissible services not included in the engagement letter, Entergy management will submit a description of the proposed service, including a budget estimate, to the Audit Committee for pre-approval.  Management and the independent auditor must agree that the requested service is consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence prior to submission to the Audit Committee.  The Audit Committee, at its discretion, will pre-approve permissible services and has established the following additional guidelines for permissible non-audit services provided by the independent auditor:
1.The independent auditor will provide the Audit Committee, for approval, an annual engagement letter outlining the scope of services proposed to be performed during the fiscal year, including audit services and other permissible non-audit services (e.g. audit-related services, tax services, and all other services).
2.For other permissible services not included in the engagement letter, Entergy management will submit a description of the proposed service, including a budget estimate, to the Audit Committee for pre-approval.  Management and the independent auditor must agree that the requested service is consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence prior to submission to the Audit Committee.  The Audit Committee, at its discretion, will pre-approve permissible services and has established the following additional guidelines for permissible non-audit services provided by the independent auditor:
aAggregate non-audit service fees are targeted at fifty percent or less of the approved audit service fee.
bAll other services should only be provided by the independent auditor if it is a highly qualified provider of that service or if the Audit Committee pre-approves the independent audit firm to provide the service.
3.The Audit Committee will be informed quarterly as to the status of pre-approved services actually provided by the independent auditor.
4.To ensure prompt handling of unexpected matters, the Audit Committee delegates to the Audit Committee Chair or its designee the authority to approve permissible services and fees.  The Audit Committee Chair or designee will report action taken to the Audit Committee at the next scheduled Audit Committee meeting.
5.The Vice President and General Auditor will be responsible for tracking all independent auditor fees and will report quarterly to the Audit Committee.


3.The Audit Committee will be informed quarterly as to the status of pre-approved services actually provided by the independent auditor.
4.To ensure prompt handling of unexpected matters, the Audit Committee delegates to the Audit Committee Chair or its designee the authority to approve permissible services and fees.  The Audit Committee Chair or designee will report action taken to the Audit Committee at the next scheduled Audit Committee meeting.
5.The Vice President and General Auditor will be responsible for tracking all independent auditor fees and will report quarterly to the Audit Committee.

518

PART IV


Item 15.  Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules


(a)1.Financial Statements and Independent Auditors’ Reports for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy are listed in the Table of Contents.
(a)2.Financial Statement Schedules
ReportReports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (see page 530)542)
Financial Statement Schedules are listed in the Index to Financial Statement Schedules (see page S-1)
(a)3.Exhibits
Exhibits for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy are listed in the Exhibit Index (see page 507)520 and are incorporated by reference herein).  Each management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed as an exhibit hereto is identified as such by footnote in the Exhibit Index.


Item 16.  Form 10-K Summary (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy)

None.



519

EXHIBIT INDEX


The following exhibits indicated by an asterisk preceding the exhibit number are filed herewith.  The balance of the exhibits have heretoforepreviously been filed with the SEC as the exhibits and in the file numbers indicated and are incorporated herein by reference.  The exhibits marked with a (+) are management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements required to be filed herewith and required to be identified as such by Item 15 of Form 10-K.


Some of the agreements included or incorporated by reference as exhibits to this Form 10-K contain representations and warranties by each of the parties to the applicable agreement.  These representations and warranties were made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the applicable agreement and (i) were not intended to be treated as categorical statements of fact, but rather as a way of allocating the risk to one of the parties if those statements prove to be inaccurate; (ii) may have been qualified in such agreement by disclosures that were made to the other party in connection with the negotiation of the applicable agreement; (iii) may apply contract standards of “materiality” that are different from the standard of “materiality” under the applicable securities laws; and (iv) were made only as of the date of the applicable agreement or such other date or dates as may be specified in the agreement.


Entergy acknowledges that, notwithstanding the inclusion of the foregoing cautionary statements, it is responsible for considering whether additional specific disclosures of material information regarding material contractual provisions are required to make the statements in this Form 10-K not misleading.


(2) Plan of Acquisition, Reorganization, Arrangement, Liquidation or Succession


Entergy Arkansas

Entergy Louisiana

Entergy Mississippi

Entergy New Orleans


(3) Articles of Incorporation and By-lawsBylaws


Entergy Corporation


520

System Energy


Entergy Arkansas


Entergy Louisiana


Entergy Mississippi

Entergy New Orleans

Entergy New Orleans


Entergy Texas


(4)Instruments Defining Rights of Security Holders, Including Indentures


Entergy Corporation
(a) 1 --See (4)(b) through (4)(g) below for instruments defining the rights of security holders of System Energy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
521


(a) 56 --
(a) 67 --
(a) 8 --
(a) 79 --
(a) 810 --
(a) 9 --
(a) 10 --
(a) 11 --

(a) 12 --
(a) 13 --

System Energy

System Energy


Entergy Arkansas

522

Entergy Arkansas
(c) 1 --
Mortgage and Deed of Trust, dated as of October 1, 1944, as amended by the following Supplemental Indentures: (7(d) in 2-5463 (Mortgage); 7(b) in 2-7121 (First); 4(a)-7 in 2-10261 (Seventh); 2(b)-10 in 2-15767 (Tenth); 2(c) in 2-28869 (Sixteenth); 2(c) in 2-35107 (Eighteenth); 2(d) in 2-36646 (Nineteenth); 2(c) in 2-39253 (Twentieth); * Filed herewith4(c)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 in 1-10764 (Thirtieth); * Filed herewith4(c)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 in 1-10764 (Thirty-first);4(c)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 in 1-10764 (Thirty-ninth);* Filed herewith (Thirty-ninth)4(c)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 in 1-10764 (Forty-first);; * Filed herewith (Forty-first); 4(d)(2) in 33-54298 (Forty-sixth); C-2 to Form U5S for the year ended December 31,1995 (Fifty-third); 4(c)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 in 1-10764 (Sixty-eighth); 4.06 to Form 8-K filed October 8, 2010 in 1-10764 (Sixty-ninth); 4.06 to Form 8-K filed November 12, 2010 in 1-10764 (Seventieth); 4.06 to Form 8-K filed December 13, 2012 in 1-10764 (Seventy-first); 4(e) to Form 8-K filed January 9, 2013 in 1-10764 (Seventy-second); 4.06 to Form 8-K filed May 30, 2013 in 1-10764 (Seventy-third); 4.06 to Form 8-K filed June 4, 2013 in 1-10764 (Seventy-fourth); 4.05 to Form 8-K filed March 14, 2014 in 1-10764 (Seventy-sixth); 4.05 to Form 8-K filed December 9, 2014 in 1-10764 (Seventy-seventh); 4.05 to Form 8-K filed January 8, 2016 in 1-10764 (Seventy-eighth); and 4.05 to Form 8-K filed August 16, 2016 in 1-10764 (Seventy-ninth); 4(a) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2018 (Eightieth); 4.1 to Form 8-K12B filed December 3, 2018 in 1-10764 (Eighty-first); 4.39 to Form 8-K filed March 19, 2019 in 1-10764 (Eighty-second); and 4.49 to Form 8-K filed September 11, 2020 in 1-10764 (Eighty-third)).
(c) 2 --
(c) 3 --
(c) 4 --
(c) 4 --
(c) 5 --
(c) 6 --
(c) 7 --
(c) 8--
*(c) 9 --
(c) 106 --


Entergy Louisiana

523

Entergy Louisiana
(d) 1 --
Mortgage and Deed of Trust, dated as of April 1, 1944, as amended by the following Supplemental Indentures: (7(d) in 2-5317 (Mortgage); 7(b) in 2-7408 (First); * Filed herewith4(d)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 in 1-32718 (Sixth);; 2(c) in 2-34659 (Twelfth); * Filed herewith4(d)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 in 1-32718 (Thirteenth); 2(b)-2 in 2-38378 (Fourteenth); * Filed herewith4(d)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 in 1-32718 (Twenty-first);4(d)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 in 1-32718 (Twenty-fifth);* Filed herewith (Twenty-fifth)4(d)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 in 1-32718 (Twenty-ninth);4(d)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 in 1-32718 (Forty-second);* Filed herewith (Twenty-ninth); * Filed herewith (Forty-second); A-2(a) to Rule 24 Certificate filed April 4, 1996 in 70-8487 (Fifty-first); B-4(i) to Rule 24 Certificate filed January 10, 2006 in 70-10324 (Sixty-third); B-4(ii) to Rule 24 Certificate filed January 10, 2006 in 70-10324 (Sixty-fourth); 4(a) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 in 1-32718 (Sixty-fifth); 4(e)1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 in 1-132718 (Sixty-sixth); 4.08 to Form 8-K filed September 24, 2010 in 1-32718 (Sixty-eighth); 4.08 to Form 8-K filed March 24, 2011 in 1-32718 (Seventy-first); 4(a) to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 in 1-32718 (Seventy-second); 4.08 to Form 8-K filed July 3, 2012 in 1-32718 (Seventy-fifth); 4.08 to Form 8-K filed December 4, 2012 in 1-32718 (Seventy-sixth); 4.08 to Form 8-K filed May 21, 2013 in 1-32718 (Seventy-seventh); 4.08 to Form 8-K filed August 23, 2013 in 1-32718 (Seventy-eighth); 4.08 to Form 8-K filed June 24, 2014 in 1-32718 (Seventy-ninth); 4.08 to Form 8-K filed July 1, 2014 in 1-32718 (Eightieth); 4.08 to Form 8-K filed November 21, 2014 (Eighty-first); 4.1 to Form 8-K12B filed October 1, 2015 (Eighty-second); 4(g) to Form 8-K filed March 18, 2016 in 1-32718 (Eighty-third); 4.33 to Form 8-K filed March 24, 2016 in 1-32718 (Eighty-fourth); 4.33 to Form 8-K filed August 17, 2016 in 1-32718 (Eighty-sixth); 4.334.43 to Form 8-K filed October 4, 2016 in 1-32718 (Eighty-seventh); and 4.43 to Form 8-K filed May 23, 2017 in 1-32718 (Eighty-eighth); 4.43 to Form 8‑K filed March 23, 2018 in 1-32718 (Eighty-ninth); 4.43 to Form 8-K filed August 14, 2018 in 1-32718 (Ninetieth); 4.43 to Form 8-K filed March 12, 2019 in 1-32718 (Ninety-first); 4.53to Form 8-K filed March 6, 2020 in 1-32718 (Ninety-second); 4.53(b) to Form 8-K filed November 13, 2020 in 1-32718 (Ninety-third); and 4.53 to Form 8-K filed November 24, 2020 in 1-32718 (Ninety-fourth)).
(d) 2 --
(d) 3 --
(d) 4 --
(d) 5 --
(d) 6 --
(d) 7 --

(d) 8 --
(d) 9 --
*(d) 103 --
(d) 4 --
*(d) 115 --
*(d) 126 --
(d) 137 --
(d) 148 --

524

(d) 159 --
(d) 1610 --
(d) 1711 --
(d) 1812 --
(d) 1913 --
(d) 2014 --


Entergy Mississippi
525


Entergy Mississippi

Entergy New Orleans

Entergy New Orleans
526


Entergy Texas

Entergy Texas

(g) 2 --
(g) 3 --
*(g) 43 --
(g) 5 --
(g) 64 --
(g) 75 --
(g) 6 --
(g) 7 --
(g) 8 --
(g) 9 --
(g) 10 --
(g) 911 --
(g) 10 --
(g) 11 --
(g) 12 --
(g) 13 --

527



(10)  Material Contracts


Entergy Corporation
+(a) 1 --1--
+(a) 2 --
+(a) 3 --
+(a) 4 --
+(a) 5 --
+(a) 62 --
+(a) 73 --
+(a) 8 --
+(a) 94 --
+(a) 105 --
+(a) 116 --
+(a) 127 --
+(a) 138 --
+(a) 149 --

528

+(a) 1914 --

+(a) 2015 --
+(a) 2116 --
+(a) 2217 --
+(a) 2318 --
+(a) 2419 --
+(a) 25 --
+(a) 26 --
+(a) 2720 --
+(a) 2821 --
+(a) 2922 --
+(a) 3023 --
+(a) 3124 --
+(a) 3225 --

529

+(a) 3831 --
+(a) 3932 --
+(a) 4033 --
+(a) 4134 --
+(a) 4235 --
+(a) 4336 --
+(a) 4437 --
+(a) 45 --
*+(a) 46 --38--
+(a)39--
*+(a) 4740 --
*+(a) 4841 --
*+(a) 4942 --
+(a) 50 --
+(a) 51 --


System Energy

System Energy
530

*(b) 4 --
*(b) 5 --
(b) 6 --
(b) 7 --
*(b) 8 --
*(b) 9 --
(b) 10 --
*(b) 119 --
(b) 1210 --
*(b) 1311 --
(b) 1412 --
*(b) 1513 --



Entergy Louisiana


(12) Statement Re Computation(14) Code of RatiosEthics

Entergy Corporation




(23)  Consents of Experts and Counsel

531



(31)  Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications



(32)  Section 1350 Certifications
532





(101)  XBRL Documents

Entergy Corporation
Interactive Data File
*INS -Inline XBRL Instance Document - The instance document does not appear in the Interactive Data File because its XBRL tags are embedded within the Inline XBRL document.
*INSSCH -Inline XBRL InstanceSchema Document.
*SCH -XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.
*CAL -Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.
*DEF -Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.
*LAB -Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.
*PRE -Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.
_________________
*(104) Cover Page Interactive Data File (formatted in Inline XBRL and contained in Exhibits 101)
_________________
*Filed herewith.
**Furnished, not filed, herewith.
Management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements.



533

ENTERGY CORPORATION


SIGNATURES




Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.


ENTERGY CORPORATION
ENTERGY CORPORATION
By  /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: February 26, 20182021


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.  The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.


SignatureTitleDate
/s/ Alyson M. Mount Kimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan

Senior Vice President and

Chief Accounting Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)
February 26, 20182021


Leo P. Denault (Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Andrew S. Marsh (Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Principal Financial Officer); Maureen S. Bateman,John R. Burbank, Patrick J. Condon, Kirkland H. Donald, Brian W. Ellis, Philip L. Frederickson, Alexis M. Herman, Donald C. Hintz,M. Elise Hyland, Stuart L. Levenick, Blanche L. Lincoln, and Karen A. Puckett and W. J. Tauzin (Directors).


By: /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
February 26, 20182021
(Alyson M. Mount,Kimberly A. Fontan, Attorney-in-fact)



534

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.LLC


SIGNATURES




Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.


ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
By  /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: February 26, 20182021


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.  The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.


SignatureTitleDate
/s/ Alyson M. Mount Kimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan

Senior Vice President and

Chief Accounting Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)
February 26, 20182021


Richard C. Riley (ChairmanLaura R. Landreaux (Chair of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Andrew S. Marsh (Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Director; Principal Financial Officer); Paul D. Hinnenkamp and Roderick K. West (Directors).


By: /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
February 26, 20182021
(Alyson M. Mount,Kimberly A. Fontan, Attorney-in-fact)



535

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC


SIGNATURES




Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.


ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
By  /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: February 26, 20182021


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.  The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.


SignatureTitleDate
/s/ Alyson M. Mount Kimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan

Senior Vice President and

Chief Accounting Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)
February 26, 20182021


Phillip R. May, Jr. (Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Andrew S. Marsh (Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Director; Principal Financial Officer); Paul D. Hinnenkamp and Roderick K. West (Directors).


By: /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
February 26, 20182021
(Alyson M. Mount,Kimberly A. Fontan, Attorney-in-fact)


536

ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.LLC


SIGNATURES




Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.


ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
By  /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: February 26, 20182021


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.  The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.


SignatureTitleDate
/s/ Alyson M. Mount Kimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan

Senior Vice President and

Chief Accounting Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)
February 26, 20182021


Haley R. Fisackerly (Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Andrew S. Marsh (Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Director; Principal Financial Officer); Paul D. Hinnenkamp and Roderick K. West (Directors).


By: /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
February 26, 20182021
(Alyson M. Mount,Kimberly A. Fontan, Attorney-in-fact)


537

ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC


SIGNATURES




Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.


ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC
ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC
By  /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: February 26, 20182021


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.  The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.


SignatureTitleDate
/s/ Alyson M. Mount Kimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan

Senior Vice President and

Chief Accounting Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)
February 26, 20182021


Charles L. Rice, Jr.David D. Ellis (Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Andrew S. Marsh (Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Director; Principal Financial Officer); Paul D. Hinnenkamp and Roderick K. West (Directors).


By: /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
February 26, 20182021
(Alyson M. Mount,Kimberly A. Fontan, Attorney-in-fact)


538

ENTERGY TEXAS, INC.


SIGNATURES




Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.


ENTERGY TEXAS, INC.
ENTERGY TEXAS, INC.
By  /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: February 26, 20182021


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.  The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.


SignatureTitleDate
/s/ Alyson M. Mount Kimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan

Senior Vice President and

Chief Accounting Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)
February 26, 20182021


Sallie T. Rainer (Chair of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Andrew S. Marsh (Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Director; Principal Financial Officer); Paul D. Hinnenkamp and Roderick K. West (Directors).


By: /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
February 26, 20182021
(Alyson M. Mount,Kimberly A. Fontan, Attorney-in-fact)


539

SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.


SIGNATURES




Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  The signature of the undersigned company shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to such company and any subsidiaries thereof.


SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
By  /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: February 26, 20182021


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.  The signature of each of the undersigned shall be deemed to relate only to matters having reference to the above-named company and any subsidiaries thereof.


SignatureTitleDate
/s/ Alyson M. Mount Kimberly A. Fontan
Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan

Senior Vice President and

Chief Accounting Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)
February 26, 20182021


Roderick K. West (Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director; Principal Executive Officer); Andrew S. Marsh (Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Director; Principal Financial Officer); A. Christopher Bakken, III and Steven C. McNeal (Directors).


By: /s/ Alyson M. MountKimberly A. Fontan
February 26, 20182021
(Alyson M. Mount,Kimberly A. Fontan, Attorney-in-fact)



540

EXHIBIT 23(a)


CONSENTS OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-213335333-233403 on Form S-3 and in Registration Statements Nos. 333-140183, 333-174148, 333-204546, 333-231800 and 333-206556333-251819 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 26, 2018,2021, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries’ internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Entergy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2017.2020.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-213335-06333-233403-05 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 26, 2018,2021, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Entergy Arkansas, Inc.LLC and Subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Entergy Arkansas, Inc.LLC for the year ended December 31, 2017.2020.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-213335-03233403-04 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 26, 2018,2021, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K of Entergy Louisiana, LLC for the year ended December 31, 2017.2020.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-213335-05233403-03 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 26, 2018,2021, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of Entergy Mississippi, LLC appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K of Entergy Mississippi, LLC for the year ended December 31, 2020.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 233403-02 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 26, 2021, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Entergy Texas, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2017.2020.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-213335-04233403-01 on Form S-3 of our report dated February 26, 2018,2021, relating to the financial statements of System Energy Resources, Inc. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of System Energy Resources, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2017.2020.




/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP




New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 20182021

541

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






To the shareholders and Board of Directors of
Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries




Opinion on the Financial Statement Schedule




We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Corporation”) as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, and the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017,2020, and have issued our reports thereon dated February 26, 2018.2021. Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement schedule of the Corporation listed in Item��Item 15. This consolidated financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Corporation’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Corporation’s consolidated financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such consolidated financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.




/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP




New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 20182021





542

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






To the shareholders and Board of Directors of
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries


To the membersmember and Board of Directors of
Entergy Arkansas, LLC and Subsidiaries
Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries
Entergy Mississippi, LLC
Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries




Opinion on the Financial Statement Schedules




We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Entergy Arkansas, Inc.LLC and Subsidiaries, Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Subsidiaries, Entergy New Orleans, LLC and Subsidiaries, and Entergy Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries, and we have also audited the financial statements of Entergy Mississippi, Inc.LLC (collectively the “Companies”) as of December 31, 20172020 and 2016,2019, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2020, and have issued our reports thereon dated February 26, 2018.2021. Our audits also included the financial statement schedules of the respective Companies listed in Item 15. These financial statement schedules are the responsibility of the respective Companies’ management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Companies’ financial statement schedules based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedules, when considered in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.




/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP




New Orleans, Louisiana
February 26, 20182021



543

INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES








Schedules other than those listed above are omitted because they are not required, not applicable, or the required information is shown in the financial statements or notes thereto.


Columns have been omitted from schedules filed because the information is not applicable.



S-1
ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
(In Thousands)
Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E
      Other  
  Balance at Additions Changes Balance
Description Beginning of Period Charged to Income Deductions (1) at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts        
2017 
$11,924
 
$4,211
 
$2,548
 
$13,587
2016 
$39,895
 
$7,505
 
$35,476
 
$11,924
2015 
$35,663
 
$6,926
 
$2,694
 
$39,895
Notes:  
  
  
  
(1) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.




ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
(In Thousands)
Column AColumn BColumn CColumn DColumn E
  Other
 Balance atAdditionsChangesBalance
DescriptionBeginning of PeriodCharged to Income
(1)
Deductions (2)at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts    
2020$7,404 $111,687 $1,297 $117,794 
2019$7,322 $2,806 $2,724 $7,404 
2018$13,587 $3,936 $10,201 $7,322 
Notes:    
(1) A portion of the charges to income are deferred as a regulatory asset.
(2) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.

S-2
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
(In Thousands)
Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E
      Other  
  Balance at Additions Changes Balance
Description Beginning of Period Charged to Income Deductions (1) at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts        
2017 
$1,211
 
$503
 
$651
 
$1,063
2016 
$34,226
 
$902
 
$33,917
 
$1,211
2015 
$32,247
 
$2,759
 
$780
 
$34,226
Notes:  
  
  
  
(1) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.




ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
(In Thousands)
Column AColumn BColumn CColumn DColumn E
  Other
 Balance atAdditionsChangesBalance
DescriptionBeginning of PeriodCharged to Income
(1)
Deductions (2)at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts    
2020$1,169 $17,307 $142 $18,334 
2019$1,264 $1,000 $1,095 $1,169 
2018$1,063 $810 $609 $1,264 
Notes:    
(1) A portion of the charges to income are deferred as a regulatory asset.
(2) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.

S-3
ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
(In Thousands)
Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E
      Other  
  Balance at Additions Changes Balance
Description Beginning of Period Charged to Income Deductions (1) at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts        
2017 
$6,277
 
$3,108
 
$955
 
$8,430
2016 
$4,209
 
$2,942
 
$874
 
$6,277
2015 
$1,609
 
$3,464
 
$864
 
$4,209
Notes:  
  
  
  
(1) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.




ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
(In Thousands)
Column AColumn BColumn CColumn DColumn E
  Other
 Balance atAdditionsChangesBalance
DescriptionBeginning of PeriodCharged to Income
(1)
Deductions (2)at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts    
2020$1,902 $44,542 $751 $45,693 
2019$1,813 $762 $673 $1,902 
2018$8,430 $2,395 $9,012 $1,813 
Notes:    
(1) A portion of the charges to income are deferred as a regulatory asset.
(2) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.

S-4
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC.
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
(In Thousands)
Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E
      Other  
  Balance at Additions Changes Balance
Description 
Beginning
of Period
 Charged to Income Deductions (1) at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts        
2017 
$549
 
$255
 
$230
 
$574
2016 
$718
 
$259
 
$428
 
$549
2015 
$873
 
$247
 
$402
 
$718
Notes:  
  
  
  
(1) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.




ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, LLC
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
(In Thousands)
Column AColumn BColumn CColumn DColumn E
  Other
 Balance atAdditionsChangesBalance
DescriptionBeginning
of Period
Charged to Income
(1)
Deductions (2)at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts    
2020$636 $19,081 $190 $19,527 
2019$563 $406 $333 $636 
2018$574 $265 $276 $563 
Notes:    
(1) A portion of the charges to income are deferred as a regulatory asset.
(2) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.

S-5
ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
(In Thousands)
Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E
      Other  
  Balance at Additions Changes Balance
Description 
Beginning
of Period
 Charged to Income Deductions (1) at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts        
2017 
$3,059
 
$152
 
$154
 
$3,057
2016 
$268
 
$2,872
 
$81
 
$3,059
2015 
$262
 
$217
 
$211
 
$268
Notes:  
  
  
  
(1) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.




ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
(In Thousands)
Column AColumn BColumn CColumn DColumn E
  Other
 Balance atAdditionsChangesBalance
DescriptionBeginning
of Period
Charged to Income
(1)
Deductions (2)at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts    
2020$3,226 $14,204 $0 $17,430 
2019$3,222 $316 $312 $3,226 
2018$3,057 $187 $22 $3,222 
Notes:    
(1) A portion of the charges to income are deferred as a regulatory asset.
(2) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.

S-6
ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015
(In Thousands)
Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E
      Other  
  Balance at Additions Changes Balance
Description 
Beginning
of Period
 Charged to Income Deductions (1) at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts        
2017 
$828
 
$192
 
$557
 
$463
2016 
$474
 
$531
 
$177
 
$828
2015 
$672
 
$239
 
$437
 
$474
Notes:  
  
  
  
(1) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.




ENTERGY TEXAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018
(In Thousands)
Column AColumn BColumn CColumn DColumn E
  Other
 Balance atAdditionsChangesBalance
DescriptionBeginning
of Period
Charged to Income
(1)
Deductions (2)at End of Period
Allowance for doubtful accounts    
2020$471 $16,554 $215 $16,810 
2019$461 $321 $311 $471 
2018$463 $279 $281 $461 
Notes:    
(1) A portion of the charges to income are deferred as a regulatory asset.
(2) Deductions represent write-offs of accounts receivable balances and are reduced by recoveries of amounts previously written off.



S-7