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, 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 those factors discussed or incorporated by reference in (a) Item 1A. Risk Factors in the Form 10-K, (b) Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis in the Form 10-K and in this report, and (c) the following factors (in addition to others described elsewhere in this combined report and in subsequent securities filings):

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

Refer to "ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES - SELECTED OPERATING RESULTS" for further information with respect to operating statistics.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to an increase of 2,307 GWh, or 9%, in billed electricity usage, including the effect of moreless favorable weather on residential and commercial sales in second quarter 2014 as compared to the firstsecond quarter 2013, substantially offset by an increase in sales to industrial customers, primarily due to expansions in the chemicals and refining industries and growth in the small industrial segments.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service and an increase in salesEntergy Arkansas depreciation rates.

Other income decreased primarily due to industrial customers. a decrease in earnings on decommissioning trust fund investments.

The effective income tax rate was 39.9% for the second quarter 2014. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the second quarter 2014 versus the statutory rate of 35% was primarily due to expansions, recovery of a major refining customer from an unplanned outage in 2013,state income taxes, the provision for uncertain tax positions, and continued moderate growthcertain book and tax differences related to utility plant items.

The effective income tax rate was 30.3% for the second quarter 2013. The difference in the manufacturing sector.effective income tax rate for the second quarter 2013 versus the statutory rate of 35% was primarily due to lower state income taxes resulting from a state deferred tax adjustment. Also contributing to the lower rate were book and tax differences related to the allowance for equity funds used during construction, partially offset by certain book and tax differences related to utility plant items.

Depreciation and atamortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service and an increase in Entergy Arkansas effective January 2014, as approved by the APSC; anddepreciation rates.

Other income decreased primarily due to a decrease in energy efficiency costs.  These costs are recovered through an energy efficiency rider and have a minimal effectearnings on net income.decommissioning trust fund investments.

Interest expense increased primarily due to net debt issuances of first mortgage bonds by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana in the second and third quarters of 2013.2013 and the lease renewal in December 2013 of the Grand Gulf sale leaseback. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein and Note 5 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for more details of long-term debt.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to a change effective in 2014 in the estimated average useful lives of plant in service as a result of a new depreciation study as well as additions to plant in service.

The effective income tax rate was 34.8%36.5% for the first quartersix months ended June 30, 2014. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the first quartersix months ended June 30, 2014 versus the statutory rate of 35% was primarily due to the provision for uncertain tax positions and certain book and tax differences related to utility plant items, partially offset by book and tax differences related to the allowance for equity funds used during construction and from a deferred state income tax reduction related to a New York tax law change. See Note 10 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the New York tax law change.

The effective income tax rate was 36.2% for the first quarter 2013 was 41.1%.six months ended June 30, 2013. The difference in the effective income tax rate for the first quartersix months ended June 30, 2013 versus the statutory rate of 35% was primarily due to state income taxes, the provision for uncertain tax positions, and certain book and tax differences related to utility plant items, partially offset by book and tax differences related to the allowance for equity funds used during construction.construction and lower state income taxes resulting from a state deferred tax adjustment.

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the NRC operating licenses for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 and the NRC license renewal applications in process for these plants.  Following is an update to the discussion regarding the NRC proceedings. In April 2014 the ASLB granted Entergy’s motion to dismiss as moot a contention by Riverkeeper alleging that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement failed to adequately address endangered species issues. At the same time, the ASLB denied a motion filed by Riverkeeper in August 2013 to amend its endangered species contention. Subject to possible appeal by Riverkeeper of one or both orders related to its endangered species contention, thereThese ASLB decisions were not appealed and are now final, leaving three Track 2 contentions. The NRC staff expects to issue a further supplemental Safety Evaluation Report no later than November 7, 2014. Testimony on the remaining Track 2 contentions has not been completed, and Track 2 hearings have not been scheduled.

See "MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - ANO Damage and Outage" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the ANO stator incident. 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 as of March 31,June 30, 2014. 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.

Entergy Arkansas is assessing its options for recovering damages that resulted from the stator drop, including its insurance coverage and legal action. Entergy is a member of Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), a mutual insurance company that provides property damage coverage to the members’ nuclear generating plants, including ANO. NEIL has notified Entergy that it believes that a $50 million course of construction sublimit applies to any loss associated with the lifting apparatus failure and stator drop at ANO. Entergy

See "MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of Entergy’s capital structure, capital expenditure plans and other uses of capital, and sources of capital.  Following are updates to that discussion.

Entergy’s capitalization is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table.

See the table and discussion in the Form 10-K under "MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital," that sets forth the amounts of planned construction and other capital investments by operating segment for 2014 through 2016.

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 Entergy’s earnings, financial strength, and future investment opportunities.  At its AprilJuly 2014 meeting, the Board declared a dividend of $0.83 per share, which is the same quarterly dividend per share that Entergy has paid since the second quarter 2010.

See "MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation" in the Form 10-K for discussions of rate regulation, federal regulation, and related regulatory proceedings.

See Note 2 to the financial statements herein for updates to the discussion in the Form 10-K regarding these proceedings.

See the Form 10-K for a discussion of federal regulatory proceedings.  Following are updates to that discussion.

As discussed in the Form 10-K, on December 19, 2013, the Utility operating companies successfully completed their planned integration into the MISO RTO.

In February 2014, Occidental filed a petition for enforcement against the LPSC. Occidental’s petition for enforcement alleges that the LPSC’s January 2014 order, which approved Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s application for modification of Entergy’s methodology for calculating avoided cost rates paid to QFs, is inconsistent with the requirements of PURPA and the FERC’s regulations implementing PURPA. In April 2014 the FERC issued a “Notice Of Intent Not To Act At This Time” with respect to Occidental’s petition for enforcement against the LPSC. The FERC concluded that Occidental’s petition for enforcement largely raises the same issues as those raised in the January 2013 complaint and petition for declaratory order that Occidental had filed against MISO, and that the two proceedings should be addressed at the same time. The FERC reserved its ability to issue a further order or to take further action at a future date should it find that doing so is appropriate.

In April 2014, Occidental filed a complaint in federal district court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the LPSC and Entergy Louisiana that challenges the January 2014 order issued by the LPSC on grounds similar to those raised in the 2013 complaint and 2014 petition for enforcement that Occidental previously filed at the FERC.  The district court complaint seeks a declaration that the January 2014 order conflicts with and is preempted by PURPA and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and also seeks an injunction prohibiting the LPSC and Entergy Louisiana from enforcing or utilizing the practices approved in the order.  The district court complaint seeks damages from Entergy Louisiana and a declaration from the district court that in pursuing the January 2014 order Entergy Louisiana breached an existing agreement with Occidental and an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Entergy Louisiana has moved to stay the district court proceeding, asserting that the FERC has primary jurisdiction to address Occidental’s claims and should be allowed to do so in the context of Occidental’s 2013 complaint.

In February 2013, Entergy Services, on behalf of the Utility operating companies, made a filing with the FERC requesting to adopt the standard Attachment O formula rate template used by transmission owners to establish transmission rates within MISO. The filing proposed four transmission pricing zones for the Utility operating companies, one for Entergy Arkansas, one for Entergy Mississippi, one for Entergy Texas, and one for Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. In June 2013 the FERC issued an order accepting the use of four transmission pricing zones and set for hearing and settlement judge procedures those issues of material fact that FERC decided could not be resolved based on the existing record. Several parties, including the City Council, filed requests for rehearing of the June 2013 order. In February 2014 the FERC issued an order addressing the rehearing requests. Among other things, the FERC denied rehearing and affirmed its prior decision allowing the four transmission

As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2014, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana provided notice of their respective decisions to terminate their participation in the System Agreement and made a filing with the FERC seeking acceptance of the notice. In the FERC filing, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana requested an effective date of February 14, 2019 or such other effective date approved by the FERC for the termination. In March 2014 the City Council submitted comments to the FERC regarding the notices of termination. The City Council requested the FERC either to condition its acceptance of the notices on compliance with the prior 96-month notice termination period, or in the alternative, to consolidate the notice filings with the proceeding related to the Utility operating companies’ proposal to shorten the System Agreement’s termination notice period from 96 months to 60 months, and to set all of the proceedings for hearing. Also in March 2014, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed a response to the City Council’s comments requesting that the FERC accept the notices without hearing and with an effective date subject to and consistent with the notice period established by the FERC in the proceeding related to the Utility operating companies’ proposal to shorten the System Agreement’s termination notice period. Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas continue to discussexplore with the LPSC staff, and City Council advisors, a proposal forand the purpose of reaching a consensual agreement among Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans onPUCT staff the early termination of the System Agreement.Agreement on a consensual basis.

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.  In addition to selling the energy produced by its plants, Entergy Wholesale Commodities 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 also uses a combination of financial contracts, 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 March 31,June 30, 2014 (2014 represents the remainder of the year):

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 March 31,June 30, 2014 market conditions, planned generation volumes, and hedged positions, would have a corresponding effect on pre-tax net income of $148$126 million for the remainder of 2014. A negative $10 per MWh change in the annual average energy price in the markets based on March 31,June 30, 2014 market conditions, planned generation volumes, and hedged positions, would have a corresponding effect on pre-tax net income of ($142)55) million for the remainder of 2014.

Some of the agreements to sell the power produced by Entergy Wholesale Commodities’Commodities’s power plants contain provisions that require an Entergy subsidiary to provide collateral to secure its obligations under the agreements.  The Entergy subsidiary is required to provide collateral based upon the difference between the current market and contracted power prices in the regions where Entergy Wholesale Commodities sells power.  The primary form of collateral to

As of March 31,June 30, 2014, substantially all of the counterparties or their guarantors for 100% of the planned energy output under contract for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants through 2018 have public investment grade credit ratings.

See "MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS – Nuclear Matters" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of nuclear matters.

See "MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Critical Accounting Estimates" in the Form 10-K for a discussion of the estimates and judgments necessary in Entergy’s accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs, unbilled revenue, impairment of long-lived assets and trust fund investments, qualified pension and other postretirement benefits, and other contingencies.  Following is an updateare updates to that discussion.

In the first quarter 2014, 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 $43.6 million increase in the decommissioning cost liabilities, along with a corresponding increase in the related asset retirement cost assets that will be depreciated over the remaining lives of the units.

The accounting standard-setting process, including projects between the FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to converge U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards, is ongoing and the FASB and the IASB are each currently working on several projects that have not yet resulted in final pronouncements.  Final pronouncements that result from these projects could have a material effect on Entergy’s future net income, financial position, or cash flows.