XML 57 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.4.0.3

Rate And Regulatory Matters | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2016
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block] | RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In April 2010 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 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. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. 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 includes 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. A procedural schedule has not been established for this proceeding, and discovery from intervenors has not commenced. Entergy Mississippi 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 shall 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, 2017 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. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do 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. Entergy Texas requested that the refund be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning June 2016. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2015 Rate Case 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 formula rate review mechanism 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, 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, subject to closing adjustments. 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 hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce 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 will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric Ninemile 6 As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff has questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement. Union Power Station As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase 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, subject to closing adjustments, and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016. Retail Rates - Gas 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 is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. Discovery regarding these issues is pending, but a procedural schedule has not been established for addressing the outstanding issues. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has not been established. Filings with the MPSC In March 2016, 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 shows a $32.6 million rate increase is 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. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. In April 2016 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed a letter disputing the formula rate plan evaluation report subject to its continued review of the submittal. A final order is expected in second quarter 2016, with the resulting rates effective mid-year 2016. Pursuant to the terms of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi also submitted an informational look-back filing for 2015 that showed Entergy Mississippi’s 2015 earned return was within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Filings with the City Council As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Power Block 1 of Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans acquired Power Block 1 of Union Power Station for approximately $237 million, subject to closing adjustments, and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. Filings with the PUCT 2011 Rate Case See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. 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 in the Form 10-K, 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 plans to petition the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. Other Filings In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor 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 May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies. It is not known when the PUCT will take up the merits of this matter, but Entergy Texas was granted interim rates as of April 14, 2016 whenever a final order is issued setting those rates. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. Interruptible Load Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of 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. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested 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 allocate 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 prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms 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 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. The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.
Entergy Arkansas [Member] |
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block] | RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In April 2010 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 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. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. 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 includes 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. A procedural schedule has not been established for this proceeding, and discovery from intervenors has not commenced. Entergy Mississippi 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 shall 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, 2017 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. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do 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. Entergy Texas requested that the refund be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning June 2016. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2015 Rate Case 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 formula rate review mechanism 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, 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, subject to closing adjustments. 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 hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce 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 will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric Ninemile 6 As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff has questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement. Union Power Station As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase 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, subject to closing adjustments, and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016. Retail Rates - Gas 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 is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. Discovery regarding these issues is pending, but a procedural schedule has not been established for addressing the outstanding issues. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has not been established. Filings with the MPSC In March 2016, 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 shows a $32.6 million rate increase is 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. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. In April 2016 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed a letter disputing the formula rate plan evaluation report subject to its continued review of the submittal. A final order is expected in second quarter 2016, with the resulting rates effective mid-year 2016. Pursuant to the terms of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi also submitted an informational look-back filing for 2015 that showed Entergy Mississippi’s 2015 earned return was within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Filings with the City Council As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Power Block 1 of Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans acquired Power Block 1 of Union Power Station for approximately $237 million, subject to closing adjustments, and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. Filings with the PUCT 2011 Rate Case See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. 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 in the Form 10-K, 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 plans to petition the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. Other Filings In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor 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 May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies. It is not known when the PUCT will take up the merits of this matter, but Entergy Texas was granted interim rates as of April 14, 2016 whenever a final order is issued setting those rates. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. Interruptible Load Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of 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. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested 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 allocate 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 prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms 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 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. The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.
Entergy Louisiana [Member] |
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block] | RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In April 2010 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 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. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. 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 includes 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. A procedural schedule has not been established for this proceeding, and discovery from intervenors has not commenced. Entergy Mississippi 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 shall 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, 2017 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. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do 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. Entergy Texas requested that the refund be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning June 2016. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2015 Rate Case 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 formula rate review mechanism 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, 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, subject to closing adjustments. 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 hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce 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 will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric Ninemile 6 As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff has questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement. Union Power Station As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase 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, subject to closing adjustments, and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016. Retail Rates - Gas 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 is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. Discovery regarding these issues is pending, but a procedural schedule has not been established for addressing the outstanding issues. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has not been established. Filings with the MPSC In March 2016, 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 shows a $32.6 million rate increase is 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. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. In April 2016 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed a letter disputing the formula rate plan evaluation report subject to its continued review of the submittal. A final order is expected in second quarter 2016, with the resulting rates effective mid-year 2016. Pursuant to the terms of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi also submitted an informational look-back filing for 2015 that showed Entergy Mississippi’s 2015 earned return was within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Filings with the City Council As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Power Block 1 of Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans acquired Power Block 1 of Union Power Station for approximately $237 million, subject to closing adjustments, and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. Filings with the PUCT 2011 Rate Case See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. 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 in the Form 10-K, 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 plans to petition the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. Other Filings In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor 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 May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies. It is not known when the PUCT will take up the merits of this matter, but Entergy Texas was granted interim rates as of April 14, 2016 whenever a final order is issued setting those rates. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. Interruptible Load Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of 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. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested 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 allocate 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 prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms 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 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. The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.
Entergy Mississippi [Member] |
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block] | RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In April 2010 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 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. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. 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 includes 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. A procedural schedule has not been established for this proceeding, and discovery from intervenors has not commenced. Entergy Mississippi 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 shall 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, 2017 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. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do 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. Entergy Texas requested that the refund be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning June 2016. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2015 Rate Case 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 formula rate review mechanism 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, 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, subject to closing adjustments. 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 hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce 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 will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric Ninemile 6 As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff has questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement. Union Power Station As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase 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, subject to closing adjustments, and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016. Retail Rates - Gas 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 is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. Discovery regarding these issues is pending, but a procedural schedule has not been established for addressing the outstanding issues. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has not been established. Filings with the MPSC In March 2016, 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 shows a $32.6 million rate increase is 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. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. In April 2016 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed a letter disputing the formula rate plan evaluation report subject to its continued review of the submittal. A final order is expected in second quarter 2016, with the resulting rates effective mid-year 2016. Pursuant to the terms of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi also submitted an informational look-back filing for 2015 that showed Entergy Mississippi’s 2015 earned return was within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Filings with the City Council As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Power Block 1 of Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans acquired Power Block 1 of Union Power Station for approximately $237 million, subject to closing adjustments, and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. Filings with the PUCT 2011 Rate Case See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. 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 in the Form 10-K, 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 plans to petition the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. Other Filings In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor 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 May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies. It is not known when the PUCT will take up the merits of this matter, but Entergy Texas was granted interim rates as of April 14, 2016 whenever a final order is issued setting those rates. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. Interruptible Load Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of 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. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested 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 allocate 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 prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms 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 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. The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.
Entergy New Orleans [Member] |
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block] | RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In April 2010 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 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. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. 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 includes 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. A procedural schedule has not been established for this proceeding, and discovery from intervenors has not commenced. Entergy Mississippi 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 shall 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, 2017 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. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do 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. Entergy Texas requested that the refund be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning June 2016. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2015 Rate Case 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 formula rate review mechanism 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, 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, subject to closing adjustments. 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 hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce 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 will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric Ninemile 6 As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff has questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement. Union Power Station As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase 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, subject to closing adjustments, and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016. Retail Rates - Gas 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 is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. Discovery regarding these issues is pending, but a procedural schedule has not been established for addressing the outstanding issues. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has not been established. Filings with the MPSC In March 2016, 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 shows a $32.6 million rate increase is 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. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. In April 2016 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed a letter disputing the formula rate plan evaluation report subject to its continued review of the submittal. A final order is expected in second quarter 2016, with the resulting rates effective mid-year 2016. Pursuant to the terms of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi also submitted an informational look-back filing for 2015 that showed Entergy Mississippi’s 2015 earned return was within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Filings with the City Council As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Power Block 1 of Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans acquired Power Block 1 of Union Power Station for approximately $237 million, subject to closing adjustments, and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. Filings with the PUCT 2011 Rate Case See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. 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 in the Form 10-K, 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 plans to petition the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. Other Filings In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor 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 May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies. It is not known when the PUCT will take up the merits of this matter, but Entergy Texas was granted interim rates as of April 14, 2016 whenever a final order is issued setting those rates. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. Interruptible Load Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of 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. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested 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 allocate 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 prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms 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 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. The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.
Entergy Texas [Member] |
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block] | RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In April 2010 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 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. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. 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 includes 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. A procedural schedule has not been established for this proceeding, and discovery from intervenors has not commenced. Entergy Mississippi 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 shall 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, 2017 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. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do 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. Entergy Texas requested that the refund be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning June 2016. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2015 Rate Case 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 formula rate review mechanism 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, 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, subject to closing adjustments. 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 hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce 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 will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric Ninemile 6 As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff has questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement. Union Power Station As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase 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, subject to closing adjustments, and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016. Retail Rates - Gas 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 is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. Discovery regarding these issues is pending, but a procedural schedule has not been established for addressing the outstanding issues. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has not been established. Filings with the MPSC In March 2016, 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 shows a $32.6 million rate increase is 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. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. In April 2016 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed a letter disputing the formula rate plan evaluation report subject to its continued review of the submittal. A final order is expected in second quarter 2016, with the resulting rates effective mid-year 2016. Pursuant to the terms of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi also submitted an informational look-back filing for 2015 that showed Entergy Mississippi’s 2015 earned return was within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Filings with the City Council As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Power Block 1 of Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans acquired Power Block 1 of Union Power Station for approximately $237 million, subject to closing adjustments, and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. Filings with the PUCT 2011 Rate Case See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. 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 in the Form 10-K, 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 plans to petition the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. Other Filings In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor 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 May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies. It is not known when the PUCT will take up the merits of this matter, but Entergy Texas was granted interim rates as of April 14, 2016 whenever a final order is issued setting those rates. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. Interruptible Load Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of 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. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested 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 allocate 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 prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms 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 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. The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.
System Energy [Member] |
Public Utilities Disclosure [Text Block] | RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities in the Utility business presented on the balance sheets of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries. The following are updates to that discussion. Fuel and purchased power cost recovery Entergy Louisiana In April 2010 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 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. Two parties intervened in the proceeding. A procedural schedule was established for the identification of issues by the intervenors and for Entergy Louisiana to submit comments regarding the LPSC staff report and any issues raised by intervenors. One intervenor sought further proceedings regarding certain issues it raised in its comments on the LPSC staff report. Entergy Louisiana filed responses to both the LPSC staff report and the issues raised by the intervenor. After conducting additional discovery, in April 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its supplemental audit report, which concluded that Entergy Louisiana was not imprudent on the issues raised by the intervenor. 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 includes 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. A procedural schedule has not been established for this proceeding, and discovery from intervenors has not commenced. Entergy Mississippi 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 shall 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, 2017 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. Entergy Texas As discussed in the Form 10-K, 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. Both appeals are pending, but the appeals do 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. Entergy Texas requested that the refund be made to most customers over a four-month period beginning June 2016. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for detailed information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that information. Filings with the APSC 2015 Rate Case 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 formula rate review mechanism 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, 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, subject to closing adjustments. 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 hearing was held in January 2016. In February 2016 the APSC approved the settlement with one exception that would reduce 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 will recover a total of $21.1 million over the nine-month period from April 2016 through December 2016. Entergy Arkansas plans to make its first formula rate plan filing in July 2016 for rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017. Filings with the LPSC Retail Rates - Electric Ninemile 6 As discussed in the Form 10-K, in July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a Ninemile 6 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. Testimony filed by LPSC staff generally supports the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff has questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC staff filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule pending the filing of an uncontested joint stipulated settlement. Union Power Station As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2015 the LPSC approved a settlement authorizing the purchase 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, subject to closing adjustments, and implemented rates to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement with the first billing cycle of March 2016. Retail Rates - Gas 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 is in compliance with the exception of several issues that require additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff has reserved the right to further review. Discovery regarding these issues is pending, but a procedural schedule has not been established for addressing the outstanding issues. Absent approval of an extension by the LPSC, test year 2015 is the final year under the current gas rate stabilization plan. In February 2016, however, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the terms of the gas rate stabilization plan for an additional three-year term. A procedural schedule has not been established. Filings with the MPSC In March 2016, 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 shows a $32.6 million rate increase is 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. The filing is currently subject to MPSC review. In April 2016 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed a letter disputing the formula rate plan evaluation report subject to its continued review of the submittal. A final order is expected in second quarter 2016, with the resulting rates effective mid-year 2016. Pursuant to the terms of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi also submitted an informational look-back filing for 2015 that showed Entergy Mississippi’s 2015 earned return was within the formula rate plan bandwidth. Filings with the City Council As discussed in the Form 10-K, in November 2015 the City Council authorized expansion of the purchased power and capacity acquisition cost recovery rider to recover the non-fuel purchased power expense from Ninemile 6 as well as the revenue requirement associated with the acquisition of Power Block 1 of Union Power Station. In March 2016, Entergy New Orleans acquired Power Block 1 of Union Power Station for approximately $237 million, subject to closing adjustments, and initiated recovery of these costs with March 2016 bills. Filings with the PUCT 2011 Rate Case See the Form 10-K for discussion of Entergy Texas’s 2011 rate case. As discussed in the Form 10-K, several parties, including Entergy Texas, appealed various aspects of the PUCT’s order to the Travis County District Court. 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 in the Form 10-K, 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 plans to petition the Texas Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Third Court’s ruling. Other Filings In September 2015, Entergy Texas filed for a transmission cost recovery factor 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 May 2016 the PUCT deferred final consideration of Entergy Texas’s TCRF application and opened the record to consider additional evidence to be provided by Entergy Texas and potentially other parties regarding the rate-making treatment of spare transmission-level transformers that are transferred among the Utility operating companies. It is not known when the PUCT will take up the merits of this matter, but Entergy Texas was granted interim rates as of April 14, 2016 whenever a final order is issued setting those rates. System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings Rough Production Cost Equalization Rates 2015 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2014 Production Costs In May 2015, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2015 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding. The filing shows that no payments and receipts are required in 2015 to implement the FERC’s remedy based on calendar year 2014 production costs. Several parties intervened in the proceeding and the LPSC and City Council intervened and filed comments. In October 2015 the FERC accepted the 2015 rates for filing, suspended them for a nominal period, to become effective June 1, 2015, as requested, subject to refund, and set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures. In March 2016, Entergy Services filed a settlement at the FERC resolving the 2015 rate filing. In the settlement, the parties did not dispute the 2015 rates as calculated with no payments or receipts. Pursuant to the settlement, the 2015 rates are subject to a recalculation and compliance filing upon resolution of other ongoing bandwidth-related proceedings. Interruptible Load Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of 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. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceedings See the Form 10-K for a discussion of the proceeding initiated at the FERC by the LPSC in June 2009 in which the LPSC initially requested 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 allocate 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 prohibits sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing the requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order denies Entergy’s request for rehearing and affirms 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 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. The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy will re-run intra-system bills for a ten-year period (2000-2009) to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that initial decision and Entergy submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order. Because further proceedings are required, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted in the case, however, in the first quarter 2016 Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies, including interest. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Therefore Entergy Arkansas recorded a regulatory asset of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for public utilities. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Details
Name: | dei_LegalEntityAxis=etr_EntergyArkansasMember
Namespace Prefix: |
Data Type: | na
Balance Type: |
Period Type: |

X
- Details
Name: | dei_LegalEntityAxis=etr_EntergyLouisianaMember
Namespace Prefix: |
Data Type: | na
Balance Type: |
Period Type: |

X
- Details
Name: | dei_LegalEntityAxis=etr_EntergyMississippiMember
Namespace Prefix: |
Data Type: | na
Balance Type: |
Period Type: |

X
- Details
Name: | dei_LegalEntityAxis=etr_EntergyNewOrleansMember
Namespace Prefix: |
Data Type: | na
Balance Type: |
Period Type: |

X
- Details
Name: | dei_LegalEntityAxis=etr_EntergyTexasMember
Namespace Prefix: |
Data Type: | na
Balance Type: |
Period Type: |

X
- Details
Name: | dei_LegalEntityAxis=etr_SystemEnergyMember
Namespace Prefix: |
Data Type: | na
Balance Type: |
Period Type: |