XML 117 R10.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, 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 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, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage and Outage See Note 8 to the financial statements 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 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 has responded that it disagrees with NEIL’s position and is evaluating its options for enforcing its rights under the policy. On July 12, 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the Circuit Court in Pope County, Arkansas against the owner of the heavy-lifting apparatus that collapsed, an engineering firm, a contractor, and certain individuals asserting claims of breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence in connection with their responsibility for the stator drop. During 2014, Entergy Arkansas collected $33 million from NEIL and is pursuing additional recoveries due under the policy. 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 May 2014 the NRC met with Entergy during a regulatory conference to discuss the preliminary red and yellow findings and Entergy's response to the findings. During the regulatory conference, Entergy presented information on the facts and assumptions the NRC used to assess the potential findings. The NRC used the information provided by Entergy at the regulatory conference to finalize its decision regarding the inspection team’s findings. In a letter dated June 23, 2014, the NRC classified both findings as “yellow with substantial safety significance.” In an assessment follow-up letter for ANO dated July 29, 2014, the NRC stated that given the two yellow findings, it determined that the performance at ANO is in the “degraded cornerstone column,” or column 3, of the NRC’s reactor oversight process action matrix beginning the first quarter 2014. The NRC plans to conduct supplemental inspection activity to review the actions taken to address the yellow findings. Corrective actions in response to the NRC’s findings have been taken and remain ongoing at ANO. Entergy will continue to interact with the NRC to address the NRC’s findings. Baxter Wilson Plant Event On September 11, 2013, Entergy Mississippi’s Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) power plant experienced a significant unplanned outage event. Entergy Mississippi completed the process of assessing the nature and extent of the damage to the unit and repairs are in progress. The current estimate of costs to return the unit to service is in the range of $45 million to $60 million. This estimate may change as restorative activities occur. The costs necessary to return the plant to service are expected to be incurred into late 2014. Entergy Mississippi believes that the damage is covered by its property insurance policy, subject to a $20 million deductible. In December 2013, Entergy Mississippi made a filing with the MPSC requesting approval for Entergy Mississippi to defer and accumulate the costs incurred in connection with Baxter Wilson repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds, with such costs to be recoverable in a manner to be determined by the MPSC. In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed a rate case with the MPSC, which includes recovery of the costs associated with Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds. The MPSC has not yet acted on this filing. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
Entergy Arkansas [Member] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, 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 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, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage and Outage See Note 8 to the financial statements 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 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 has responded that it disagrees with NEIL’s position and is evaluating its options for enforcing its rights under the policy. On July 12, 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the Circuit Court in Pope County, Arkansas against the owner of the heavy-lifting apparatus that collapsed, an engineering firm, a contractor, and certain individuals asserting claims of breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence in connection with their responsibility for the stator drop. During 2014, Entergy Arkansas collected $33 million from NEIL and is pursuing additional recoveries due under the policy. 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 May 2014 the NRC met with Entergy during a regulatory conference to discuss the preliminary red and yellow findings and Entergy's response to the findings. During the regulatory conference, Entergy presented information on the facts and assumptions the NRC used to assess the potential findings. The NRC used the information provided by Entergy at the regulatory conference to finalize its decision regarding the inspection team’s findings. In a letter dated June 23, 2014, the NRC classified both findings as “yellow with substantial safety significance.” In an assessment follow-up letter for ANO dated July 29, 2014, the NRC stated that given the two yellow findings, it determined that the performance at ANO is in the “degraded cornerstone column,” or column 3, of the NRC’s reactor oversight process action matrix beginning the first quarter 2014. The NRC plans to conduct supplemental inspection activity to review the actions taken to address the yellow findings. Corrective actions in response to the NRC’s findings have been taken and remain ongoing at ANO. Entergy will continue to interact with the NRC to address the NRC’s findings. Baxter Wilson Plant Event On September 11, 2013, Entergy Mississippi’s Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) power plant experienced a significant unplanned outage event. Entergy Mississippi completed the process of assessing the nature and extent of the damage to the unit and repairs are in progress. The current estimate of costs to return the unit to service is in the range of $45 million to $60 million. This estimate may change as restorative activities occur. The costs necessary to return the plant to service are expected to be incurred into late 2014. Entergy Mississippi believes that the damage is covered by its property insurance policy, subject to a $20 million deductible. In December 2013, Entergy Mississippi made a filing with the MPSC requesting approval for Entergy Mississippi to defer and accumulate the costs incurred in connection with Baxter Wilson repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds, with such costs to be recoverable in a manner to be determined by the MPSC. In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed a rate case with the MPSC, which includes recovery of the costs associated with Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds. The MPSC has not yet acted on this filing. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana [Member] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, 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 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, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage and Outage See Note 8 to the financial statements 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 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 has responded that it disagrees with NEIL’s position and is evaluating its options for enforcing its rights under the policy. On July 12, 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the Circuit Court in Pope County, Arkansas against the owner of the heavy-lifting apparatus that collapsed, an engineering firm, a contractor, and certain individuals asserting claims of breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence in connection with their responsibility for the stator drop. During 2014, Entergy Arkansas collected $33 million from NEIL and is pursuing additional recoveries due under the policy. 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 May 2014 the NRC met with Entergy during a regulatory conference to discuss the preliminary red and yellow findings and Entergy's response to the findings. During the regulatory conference, Entergy presented information on the facts and assumptions the NRC used to assess the potential findings. The NRC used the information provided by Entergy at the regulatory conference to finalize its decision regarding the inspection team’s findings. In a letter dated June 23, 2014, the NRC classified both findings as “yellow with substantial safety significance.” In an assessment follow-up letter for ANO dated July 29, 2014, the NRC stated that given the two yellow findings, it determined that the performance at ANO is in the “degraded cornerstone column,” or column 3, of the NRC’s reactor oversight process action matrix beginning the first quarter 2014. The NRC plans to conduct supplemental inspection activity to review the actions taken to address the yellow findings. Corrective actions in response to the NRC’s findings have been taken and remain ongoing at ANO. Entergy will continue to interact with the NRC to address the NRC’s findings. Baxter Wilson Plant Event On September 11, 2013, Entergy Mississippi’s Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) power plant experienced a significant unplanned outage event. Entergy Mississippi completed the process of assessing the nature and extent of the damage to the unit and repairs are in progress. The current estimate of costs to return the unit to service is in the range of $45 million to $60 million. This estimate may change as restorative activities occur. The costs necessary to return the plant to service are expected to be incurred into late 2014. Entergy Mississippi believes that the damage is covered by its property insurance policy, subject to a $20 million deductible. In December 2013, Entergy Mississippi made a filing with the MPSC requesting approval for Entergy Mississippi to defer and accumulate the costs incurred in connection with Baxter Wilson repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds, with such costs to be recoverable in a manner to be determined by the MPSC. In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed a rate case with the MPSC, which includes recovery of the costs associated with Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds. The MPSC has not yet acted on this filing. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
Entergy Louisiana [Member] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, 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 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, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage and Outage See Note 8 to the financial statements 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 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 has responded that it disagrees with NEIL’s position and is evaluating its options for enforcing its rights under the policy. On July 12, 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the Circuit Court in Pope County, Arkansas against the owner of the heavy-lifting apparatus that collapsed, an engineering firm, a contractor, and certain individuals asserting claims of breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence in connection with their responsibility for the stator drop. During 2014, Entergy Arkansas collected $33 million from NEIL and is pursuing additional recoveries due under the policy. 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 May 2014 the NRC met with Entergy during a regulatory conference to discuss the preliminary red and yellow findings and Entergy's response to the findings. During the regulatory conference, Entergy presented information on the facts and assumptions the NRC used to assess the potential findings. The NRC used the information provided by Entergy at the regulatory conference to finalize its decision regarding the inspection team’s findings. In a letter dated June 23, 2014, the NRC classified both findings as “yellow with substantial safety significance.” In an assessment follow-up letter for ANO dated July 29, 2014, the NRC stated that given the two yellow findings, it determined that the performance at ANO is in the “degraded cornerstone column,” or column 3, of the NRC’s reactor oversight process action matrix beginning the first quarter 2014. The NRC plans to conduct supplemental inspection activity to review the actions taken to address the yellow findings. Corrective actions in response to the NRC’s findings have been taken and remain ongoing at ANO. Entergy will continue to interact with the NRC to address the NRC’s findings. Baxter Wilson Plant Event On September 11, 2013, Entergy Mississippi’s Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) power plant experienced a significant unplanned outage event. Entergy Mississippi completed the process of assessing the nature and extent of the damage to the unit and repairs are in progress. The current estimate of costs to return the unit to service is in the range of $45 million to $60 million. This estimate may change as restorative activities occur. The costs necessary to return the plant to service are expected to be incurred into late 2014. Entergy Mississippi believes that the damage is covered by its property insurance policy, subject to a $20 million deductible. In December 2013, Entergy Mississippi made a filing with the MPSC requesting approval for Entergy Mississippi to defer and accumulate the costs incurred in connection with Baxter Wilson repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds, with such costs to be recoverable in a manner to be determined by the MPSC. In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed a rate case with the MPSC, which includes recovery of the costs associated with Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds. The MPSC has not yet acted on this filing. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
Entergy Mississippi [Member] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, 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 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, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage and Outage See Note 8 to the financial statements 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 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 has responded that it disagrees with NEIL’s position and is evaluating its options for enforcing its rights under the policy. On July 12, 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the Circuit Court in Pope County, Arkansas against the owner of the heavy-lifting apparatus that collapsed, an engineering firm, a contractor, and certain individuals asserting claims of breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence in connection with their responsibility for the stator drop. During 2014, Entergy Arkansas collected $33 million from NEIL and is pursuing additional recoveries due under the policy. 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 May 2014 the NRC met with Entergy during a regulatory conference to discuss the preliminary red and yellow findings and Entergy's response to the findings. During the regulatory conference, Entergy presented information on the facts and assumptions the NRC used to assess the potential findings. The NRC used the information provided by Entergy at the regulatory conference to finalize its decision regarding the inspection team’s findings. In a letter dated June 23, 2014, the NRC classified both findings as “yellow with substantial safety significance.” In an assessment follow-up letter for ANO dated July 29, 2014, the NRC stated that given the two yellow findings, it determined that the performance at ANO is in the “degraded cornerstone column,” or column 3, of the NRC’s reactor oversight process action matrix beginning the first quarter 2014. The NRC plans to conduct supplemental inspection activity to review the actions taken to address the yellow findings. Corrective actions in response to the NRC’s findings have been taken and remain ongoing at ANO. Entergy will continue to interact with the NRC to address the NRC’s findings. Baxter Wilson Plant Event On September 11, 2013, Entergy Mississippi’s Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) power plant experienced a significant unplanned outage event. Entergy Mississippi completed the process of assessing the nature and extent of the damage to the unit and repairs are in progress. The current estimate of costs to return the unit to service is in the range of $45 million to $60 million. This estimate may change as restorative activities occur. The costs necessary to return the plant to service are expected to be incurred into late 2014. Entergy Mississippi believes that the damage is covered by its property insurance policy, subject to a $20 million deductible. In December 2013, Entergy Mississippi made a filing with the MPSC requesting approval for Entergy Mississippi to defer and accumulate the costs incurred in connection with Baxter Wilson repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds, with such costs to be recoverable in a manner to be determined by the MPSC. In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed a rate case with the MPSC, which includes recovery of the costs associated with Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds. The MPSC has not yet acted on this filing. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
Entergy New Orleans [Member] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, 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 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, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage and Outage See Note 8 to the financial statements 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 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 has responded that it disagrees with NEIL’s position and is evaluating its options for enforcing its rights under the policy. On July 12, 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the Circuit Court in Pope County, Arkansas against the owner of the heavy-lifting apparatus that collapsed, an engineering firm, a contractor, and certain individuals asserting claims of breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence in connection with their responsibility for the stator drop. During 2014, Entergy Arkansas collected $33 million from NEIL and is pursuing additional recoveries due under the policy. 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 May 2014 the NRC met with Entergy during a regulatory conference to discuss the preliminary red and yellow findings and Entergy's response to the findings. During the regulatory conference, Entergy presented information on the facts and assumptions the NRC used to assess the potential findings. The NRC used the information provided by Entergy at the regulatory conference to finalize its decision regarding the inspection team’s findings. In a letter dated June 23, 2014, the NRC classified both findings as “yellow with substantial safety significance.” In an assessment follow-up letter for ANO dated July 29, 2014, the NRC stated that given the two yellow findings, it determined that the performance at ANO is in the “degraded cornerstone column,” or column 3, of the NRC’s reactor oversight process action matrix beginning the first quarter 2014. The NRC plans to conduct supplemental inspection activity to review the actions taken to address the yellow findings. Corrective actions in response to the NRC’s findings have been taken and remain ongoing at ANO. Entergy will continue to interact with the NRC to address the NRC’s findings. Baxter Wilson Plant Event On September 11, 2013, Entergy Mississippi’s Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) power plant experienced a significant unplanned outage event. Entergy Mississippi completed the process of assessing the nature and extent of the damage to the unit and repairs are in progress. The current estimate of costs to return the unit to service is in the range of $45 million to $60 million. This estimate may change as restorative activities occur. The costs necessary to return the plant to service are expected to be incurred into late 2014. Entergy Mississippi believes that the damage is covered by its property insurance policy, subject to a $20 million deductible. In December 2013, Entergy Mississippi made a filing with the MPSC requesting approval for Entergy Mississippi to defer and accumulate the costs incurred in connection with Baxter Wilson repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds, with such costs to be recoverable in a manner to be determined by the MPSC. In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed a rate case with the MPSC, which includes recovery of the costs associated with Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds. The MPSC has not yet acted on this filing. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
Entergy Texas [Member] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, 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 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, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage and Outage See Note 8 to the financial statements 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 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 has responded that it disagrees with NEIL’s position and is evaluating its options for enforcing its rights under the policy. On July 12, 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the Circuit Court in Pope County, Arkansas against the owner of the heavy-lifting apparatus that collapsed, an engineering firm, a contractor, and certain individuals asserting claims of breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence in connection with their responsibility for the stator drop. During 2014, Entergy Arkansas collected $33 million from NEIL and is pursuing additional recoveries due under the policy. 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 May 2014 the NRC met with Entergy during a regulatory conference to discuss the preliminary red and yellow findings and Entergy's response to the findings. During the regulatory conference, Entergy presented information on the facts and assumptions the NRC used to assess the potential findings. The NRC used the information provided by Entergy at the regulatory conference to finalize its decision regarding the inspection team’s findings. In a letter dated June 23, 2014, the NRC classified both findings as “yellow with substantial safety significance.” In an assessment follow-up letter for ANO dated July 29, 2014, the NRC stated that given the two yellow findings, it determined that the performance at ANO is in the “degraded cornerstone column,” or column 3, of the NRC’s reactor oversight process action matrix beginning the first quarter 2014. The NRC plans to conduct supplemental inspection activity to review the actions taken to address the yellow findings. Corrective actions in response to the NRC’s findings have been taken and remain ongoing at ANO. Entergy will continue to interact with the NRC to address the NRC’s findings. Baxter Wilson Plant Event On September 11, 2013, Entergy Mississippi’s Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) power plant experienced a significant unplanned outage event. Entergy Mississippi completed the process of assessing the nature and extent of the damage to the unit and repairs are in progress. The current estimate of costs to return the unit to service is in the range of $45 million to $60 million. This estimate may change as restorative activities occur. The costs necessary to return the plant to service are expected to be incurred into late 2014. Entergy Mississippi believes that the damage is covered by its property insurance policy, subject to a $20 million deductible. In December 2013, Entergy Mississippi made a filing with the MPSC requesting approval for Entergy Mississippi to defer and accumulate the costs incurred in connection with Baxter Wilson repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds, with such costs to be recoverable in a manner to be determined by the MPSC. In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed a rate case with the MPSC, which includes recovery of the costs associated with Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds. The MPSC has not yet acted on this filing. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.
System Energy [Member] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, 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 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, except as otherwise discussed in the Form 10-K or in this report. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and herein and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K and Note 10 to the financial statements herein. ANO Damage and Outage See Note 8 to the financial statements 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 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 has responded that it disagrees with NEIL’s position and is evaluating its options for enforcing its rights under the policy. On July 12, 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the Circuit Court in Pope County, Arkansas against the owner of the heavy-lifting apparatus that collapsed, an engineering firm, a contractor, and certain individuals asserting claims of breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence in connection with their responsibility for the stator drop. During 2014, Entergy Arkansas collected $33 million from NEIL and is pursuing additional recoveries due under the policy. 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 May 2014 the NRC met with Entergy during a regulatory conference to discuss the preliminary red and yellow findings and Entergy's response to the findings. During the regulatory conference, Entergy presented information on the facts and assumptions the NRC used to assess the potential findings. The NRC used the information provided by Entergy at the regulatory conference to finalize its decision regarding the inspection team’s findings. In a letter dated June 23, 2014, the NRC classified both findings as “yellow with substantial safety significance.” In an assessment follow-up letter for ANO dated July 29, 2014, the NRC stated that given the two yellow findings, it determined that the performance at ANO is in the “degraded cornerstone column,” or column 3, of the NRC’s reactor oversight process action matrix beginning the first quarter 2014. The NRC plans to conduct supplemental inspection activity to review the actions taken to address the yellow findings. Corrective actions in response to the NRC’s findings have been taken and remain ongoing at ANO. Entergy will continue to interact with the NRC to address the NRC’s findings. Baxter Wilson Plant Event On September 11, 2013, Entergy Mississippi’s Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) power plant experienced a significant unplanned outage event. Entergy Mississippi completed the process of assessing the nature and extent of the damage to the unit and repairs are in progress. The current estimate of costs to return the unit to service is in the range of $45 million to $60 million. This estimate may change as restorative activities occur. The costs necessary to return the plant to service are expected to be incurred into late 2014. Entergy Mississippi believes that the damage is covered by its property insurance policy, subject to a $20 million deductible. In December 2013, Entergy Mississippi made a filing with the MPSC requesting approval for Entergy Mississippi to defer and accumulate the costs incurred in connection with Baxter Wilson repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds, with such costs to be recoverable in a manner to be determined by the MPSC. In June 2014, Entergy Mississippi filed a rate case with the MPSC, which includes recovery of the costs associated with Baxter Wilson (Unit 1) repair activities, net of applicable insurance proceeds. The MPSC has not yet acted on this filing. Nuclear Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on nuclear liability and property insurance associated with Entergy’s nuclear power plants. Conventional Property Insurance See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s non-nuclear property insurance program. Employment Litigation See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information on Entergy’s employment and labor-related proceedings. Asbestos Litigation (Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas) See Note 8 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding asbestos litigation at Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration