XML 49 R10.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

Rate And Regulatory Matters | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities 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 Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovered balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2021, Entergy Louisiana incurred extraordinary fuel costs associated with the February 2021 winter storms. To mitigate the effect of these costs on customer bills, in March 2021, Entergy Louisiana requested and the LPSC approved the deferral and recovery of $166 million in incremental fuel costs over five months beginning in April 2021. In April 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause charges in February 2021 that did not recommend any financial disallowances, but included several prospective recommendations. Responsive testimony was filed by one intervenor and the parties agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. In May 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment charges in February 2021 that did not propose any financial disallowances. The LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana have agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. To mitigate high electric bills, primarily driven by high summer usage and elevated gas prices, Entergy Louisiana has deferred approximately $135 million of fuel expense incurred in April, May, and June 2022 (as reflected on June, July, and August 2022 bills). Deferrals from April and May 2022 are expected to be recovered in the last four months of 2022 and June 2022 deferrals will be included in the over/under calculation of the fuel adjustment clause. Entergy Mississippi See “Complaints Against System Energy - System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of the settlement agreement filed with the FERC in June 2022. The settlement, which is contingent upon FERC approval, provides for a refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi. In July 2022 the MPSC directed the disbursement of settlement proceeds, ordering Entergy Mississippi to provide a one-time $80 bill credit to each of its approximately 460,000 retail customers to be effective during the September 2022 billing cycle, and to apply the remaining proceeds to Entergy Mississippi’s under-recovered deferred fuel balance. Entergy Texas In May 2022, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to implement an interim fuel surcharge to collect the cumulative under-recovery of approximately $51.7 million, including interest, of fuel and purchased power costs incurred from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. The under-recovery balance is primarily attributable to the impacts of Winter Storm Uri, including historically high natural gas prices, partially offset by settlements received by Entergy Texas from MISO related to Hurricane Laura. Entergy Texas proposed that the interim fuel surcharge be assessed over a period of six months beginning with the first billing cycle after the PUCT issues a final order, but no later than the first billing cycle of September 2022. Also in May 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed settlement resolving all issues in the proceeding. In addition, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a motion to admit evidence, to approve interim rates as requested in the initial application, and to remand the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the unopposed settlement. In August 2022 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting Entergy Texas’s motion, approving interim rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022, and remanding the case to the PUCT for final approval. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2022 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2023 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2023 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2021. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2023 projected year is 7.40% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $104.8 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 historical year was 8.38% resulting in a $15.2 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2023 projected year and 2021 historical year netting adjustment is $119.9 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase is limited to $79.3 million. COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $36.6 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) Retail Rates - Electric 2021 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2021 calendar year operations. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 8.33%, with a base formula rate plan revenue increase of $65.3 million. Other increases in formula rate plan revenue driven by reductions in Tax Cut and Jobs Act credits and additions to transmission and distribution plant in service reflected through the transmission recovery mechanism and distribution recovery mechanism are partly offset by an increase in net MISO revenues, leading to a net increase in formula rate plan revenue of $152.9 million. The effects of the changes to total formula rate plan revenue are different for each legacy company, primarily due to differences in the legacy companies’ capacity cost changes, including the effect of true-ups. Legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $86 million and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $66.9 million. Subject to refund and LPSC review, the resulting changes will be effective for bills rendered during the first billing cycle of September 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022. In June 2022, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed the 2022 test year filing that resulted in a total rate increase of $48.6 million. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2021 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 5.99% in calendar year 2021, which is below the look-back bandwidth, resulting in a $34.3 million increase in the formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2023. In July 2022 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective in August 2022. In July 2022 the MPSC directed Entergy Mississippi to flow $14.1 million of the power management rider over-recovery balance to customers beginning in August 2022 through December 2022 to mitigate the bill impact of the increase in formula rate plan revenues. Sunflower Solar As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order approving certification of the Sunflower Solar facility and its recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, subject to certain conditions. In July 2022, pursuant to the MPSC’s April 2020 order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a compliance filing to the MPSC with updated calculations of the impact of the Sunflower Solar facility on rate base and revenue requirement for the Sunflower Solar facility and benefits of the tax equity partnership. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s purchase of the Sunflower Solar facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $13.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Mississippi received approval to recover this regulatory asset through its formula rate plan rider over a three-year period beginning August 2022. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report, subsequently updated in a July 2022 filing, produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $42.1 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $34.1 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.3 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. In July 2022 the City Council’s advisors issued a report seeking a reduction to Entergy New Orleans’s proposed increase of approximately $17.1 million in total for electric and gas revenues. The parties have a 25-day period to attempt to reach an agreement on the final amount to increase revenues, with implementation of resulting rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council will set a procedural schedule that will extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 formula rate plan filing, Entergy New Orleans requested recovery of this regulatory asset over a five-year period beginning September 2022. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Retail Rates 2022 Base Rate Case In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed a base rate case with the PUCT seeking an increase in base rates of approximately $131.4 million. The base rate case was based on a 12-month test year ending December 31, 2021. Key drivers of the requested increase are changes in depreciation rates as the result of a depreciation study and an increase in the return on equity. In addition, Entergy Texas included capital additions placed into service for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021, including those additions currently reflected in the distribution and transmission cost recovery factor riders and the generation cost recovery rider, all of which would be reset to zero as a result of this proceeding. In July 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Also in July 2022, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings approved a procedural schedule with a hearing on the merits in December 2022. Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $66.1 million annually, or $15.1 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Energy Texas’s currently effective TCRF rider based on its capital invested in transmission between September 1, 2020 and July 31, 2021 and changes in approved transmission charges. In January 2022 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In February 2022 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested TCRF revenue requirement with interim rates effective March 2022. In February 2022 the ALJ granted the motion for interim rates, admitted evidence, and remanded the case to the PUCT for consideration of a final order at a future open meeting. In June 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. Concurrently with filing of the unanimous settlement agreement, Entergy Texas submitted an agreed motion to admit evidence and remand the case to the PUCT for review and consideration of the settlement agreement, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 base rate case filing, Entergy Texas requested recovery of its regulatory asset over a three-year period beginning December 2022. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. In June 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion asserting that it is entitled to summary judgment because Entergy Arkansas’s position that the APSC’s order is pre-empted by the filed rate doctrine and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause is premised on facts that are not subject to genuine dispute. In July 2022, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc., an industrial customer association, filed a motion to intervene and to hold Entergy Arkansas’s motion for summary judgment in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion to intervene. Entergy Arkansas filed a consolidated opposition to both motions. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. See “System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement related to the pending proceedings before the FERC. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through June 30, 2022 is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $139 million through June 30, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that: (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In April 2022, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony in response to the FERC trial staff’s recommendations of refunds for the accumulated deferred income taxes issues and proposed modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement for the executive incentive compensation issues. In June 2022 the FERC trial staff submitted revised answering testimony, in which it recommended additional refunds associated with the accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. Based on the testimony revisions, the FERC trial staff’s recommended refunds total $106.6 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC awarded interest. Also in June 2022, System Energy filed revised and supplemental cross-answering testimony to respond to the changes in the FERC trial staff’s testimony and oppose its revised recommendation. In May 2022 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed rebuttal testimony. The LPSC’s testimony asserts new claims, including that: (1) certain of the sale-leaseback transaction costs may have been imprudently incurred; (2) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with sale-leaseback transaction costs should have been included in rate base; (3) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with federal investment tax credits should have been excluded from rate base; (4) monthly net operating loss accumulated deferred income taxes should have been excluded from rate base; and (5) several categories of proposed rate changes, including executive incentive compensation, air travel, industry dues, and legal costs, also warrant historical refunds. The LPSC’s rebuttal testimony argues that refunds for the alleged tariff violations and other claims must be calculated by rerunning the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate; however, it includes estimates of refunds associated with some, but not all, of its claims, totaling $286 million without interest. The City Council’s rebuttal testimony also proposes a new, alternate theory and claim for relief regarding System Energy’s participation in the Entergy System money pool, under which it calculates estimated refunds of approximately $51.7 million. The APSC’s rebuttal testimony agrees with the LPSC’s direct testimony that retained earnings should be adjusted in a comprehensive refund calculation. The testimony quantifies the estimated impacts of three issues: (1) a $1.5 million reduction in the revenue requirement under the Unit Power Sales Agreement if System Energy’s borrowings from the money pool are included in short-term debt; (2) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement if System Energy’s allocated share of money pool earnings are credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement; and (3) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement for every $50 million of refunds ordered in a given year, without interest. In June 2022 a new procedural schedule was adopted, providing for additional rounds of testimony, for the hearing to begin in September 2022, and for the initial decision to be issued in February 2023. In July 2022, System Energy filed responsive rebuttal testimony responding to the new claims in the LPSC’s and the City Council’s rebuttal testimony. Also in July 2022 the LPSC filed supplemental rebuttal testimony responding to System Energy’s revised cross-answering testimony. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million in refunds, excluding interest which will be calculated after a FERC order is issued; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. System Energy Settlement with the MPSC In June 2022, System Energy, Entergy Mississippi, and additional named Entergy parties involved in thirteen docketed proceedings before the FERC filed with the FERC a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement. The settlement memorializes the Entergy parties’ agreement with the MPSC to globally resolve all actual and potential claims between the Entergy parties and the MPSC associated with those FERC proceedings and with System Energy’s past implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is a FERC-jurisdictional formula rate tariff for sales of energy and capacity from System Energy’s owned and leased share of Grand Gulf to Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Mississippi purchases the greatest single amount, nearly 40% of System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf, after its additional purchases from affiliates are considered. The settlement therefore limits System Energy’s overall refund exposure associated with the identified proceedings because they will be resolved completely as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC. The FERC proceedings that are resolved as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC include the Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints, the Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue, the Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint, and the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint, all of which are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K, and updated above. They also include the proceedings concerning System Energy’s return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the proceedings established to address System Energy’s October 2020 and December 2020 Federal Power Act section 205 filings to provide credits to customers related to the IRS’s decision as to the uncertain decommissioning tax position, also as all discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K. The settlement also resolves the MPSC’s involvement in the formal challenge filed by the retail regulators of System Energy’s customers in connection with the implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement annual formula rate protocols for the 2020 test year, which is discussed above. The settlement provides for a black-box refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi, which will be paid within 120 days of the settlement’s effective date (either the date of the FERC approval of the settlement without material modification, or the date that all settling parties agree to accept modifications or otherwise modify the settlement in response to a proposed material modification by the FERC). In addition, beginning with the July 2022 service month, the settlement provides for Entergy Mississippi’s bills from System Energy to be adjusted to reflect: an authorized rate of return on equity of 9.65%, a capital structure not to exceed 52% equity, a rate base reduction for the advance collection of sale-leaseback rental costs, and the exclusion of certain long-term incentive plan performance unit costs from rates. The settlement is expressly contingent upon the approval of the FERC and the MPSC. It was approved by the MPSC in June 2022. The remaining retail regulators of Entergy’s utility operating company purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (the APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council) may elect to join the settlement. If all of them elect to do so under the terms of the settlement, then the total black-box refund payment by System Energy would be $588.25 million, and the prospective rate adjustments would apply to all purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. If the FERC approves the settlement in accordance with its terms, then it will become binding upon the Entergy parties and the MPSC even if no additional retail regulators elect to join the settlement. The settlement will have no effect on the rights of non-settling parties to the identified FERC proceedings. System Energy previously recorded a provision and associated liability of $37 million for elements of the applicable litigation. In June 2022, System Energy recorded a regulatory charge of $551 million ($413 million net-of-tax), increasing the regulatory liability to $588 million, which consists of $235 million for the settlement with the MPSC and $353 million for potential future refunds to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. In August 2022 comments on the settlement were filed by the APSC, the LPSC, the City Council, the FERC trial staff, and a group that refers to itself as the Louisiana Stakeholders, which are three entities that intervened in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding but not any other proceedings that are part of the settlement. The APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council do not intend to join the settlement, but they do not oppose its approval as between the MPSC and the Entergy parties. The FERC trial staff concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. The Louisiana Stakeholders oppose the settlement, alleging it does not resolve the issues raised in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding. Reply comments will be filed later in August 2022. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana sought an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.942 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In May 2022 the securitization financing closed, resulting in the issuance of $3.194 billion principal amount of bonds by Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA), a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. The securitization was authorized pursuant to the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation Act, Part VIII of Chapter 9 of Title 45 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana legislature approved in 2021. The LCDA loaned the proceeds to the LURC. Pursuant to Act 293, the LURC contributed the net bond proceeds to a State legislatively authorized and LURC-sponsored trust, Restoration Law Trust I (the storm trust). Pursuant to Act 293, the net proceeds of the bonds were used by the storm trust to purchase 31,635,718.7221 Class A preferred, non-voting membership interest units (the preferred interests) issued by Entergy Finance Company, LLC, a majority-owned indirect subsidiary of Entergy. Entergy Finance Company is required to make annual distributions (dividends) commencing on December 15, 2022 on the preferred interests issued to the storm trust. These annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana and the LURC, as beneficiaries of the storm trust. Specifically, 1% of the annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to the LURC, for the benefit of customers, and 99% will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana, net of storm trust expenses. The preferred interests have a stated annual cumulative cash dividend rate of 7% and a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The terms of the preferred interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Finance Company is subject. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA. The bonds are secured by system restoration property, which is the right granted by law to the LURC to collect a system restoration charge from customers. The system restoration charge is adjusted at least semi-annually to ensure that it is sufficient to service the bonds. Entergy Louisiana collects the system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy Louisiana began collecting the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of June 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as a billing and collection agent for the LCDA and the LURC. In the remote possibility that the system restoration charge, as well as any funds in the excess subaccount and funds in the debt service reserve account, are insufficient to service the bonds resulting in a payment default, the storm trust is required to liquidate Entergy Finance Company preferred interests in an amount equal to what would be required to cure the default. The estimated value of this indirect guarantee is immaterial. From the proceeds from the issuance of the preferred membership interests, Entergy Finance Company distributed $1.4 billion to its parent, Entergy Holdings Company, LLC. Subsequently, Entergy Holdings Company liquidated, distributing the $1.4 billion it received from Entergy Finance Company to Entergy Louisiana as holder of 6,843,780.24 units of Class A, 4,126,940.15 units of Class B, and 2,935,152.69 units of Class C preferred membership interests. Entergy Louisiana had acquired these preferred membership interests with proceeds from previous securitizations of storm restoration costs. Entergy Finance Company loaned the remaining $1.7 billion from the preferred membership interests proceeds to Entergy which used the cash to redeem $650 million of 4.00% Series senior notes due July 2022 and indirectly contributed $1 billion to Entergy Louisiana as a capital contribution. Entergy Louisiana used the $1 billion capital contribution to fund its Hurricane Ida escrow account and subsequently withdrew the $1 billion from the escrow account. With a portion of the $1 billion withdrawn from the escrow account and the $1.4 billion from the Entergy Holdings Company liquidation, Entergy Louisiana deposited $290 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for future storms, used $1.2 billion to repay its unsecured term loan due June 2023, and used $435 million to redeem a portion of its 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023. As discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements herein, the securitization resulted in recognition of a reduction of income tax expense of approximately $290 million by Entergy Louisiana. Entergy’s recognition of reduced income tax expense was offset by other tax charges resulting in a net reduction of income tax expense of $283 million. I n recognition of obligations related to an LPSC ancillary order issued as part of the securitization regulatory proceeding, Entergy Louisiana recorded a $224 million ($165 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to share the benefits of the securitization with customers. As discussed in Note 12 to the financial statements herein, Entergy Louisiana consolidates the storm trust as a variable interest entity and the LURC’s 1% beneficial interest is shown as noncontrolling interest in the financial statements. In second quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana recorded a charge of $31.6 million in other income to reflect the LURC’s beneficial interest in the trust. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs of $57 million through December 2022, Entergy Louisiana is seeking an LPSC determination that $2.60 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As part of this filing, Entergy Louisiana also is seeking an LPSC determination that an additional $32 million in costs associated with the restoration of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta as well as Winter Storm Uri was prudently incurred. This amount is exclusive of the requested $3 million in carrying costs through December 2022. In total, Entergy Louisiana is requesting an LPSC determination that $2.64 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As discussed above, in March 2022 the LPSC approved financing of a $1 billion storm escrow account from which funds were withdrawn to finance costs associated with Hurricane Ida restoration. In June 2022, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. A procedural schedule has been established with a hearing in December 2022. Entergy New Orleans Hurricane Zeta As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In March 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $44 million from its funded storm reserves. In May 2021, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that its system restoration costs associated with Hurricane Zeta of approximately $36 million, which included $7 million in estimated costs, were reasonable and necessary to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. In May 2022 the City Council advisors issued a report recommending that the City Council find that Entergy New Orleans acted prudently in restoring service following Hurricane Zeta and approximately $33 million in storm restoration costs were prudently incurred and recoverable. Additionally, the advisors concluded that approximately $7 million of the $44 million withdrawn from its funded storm reserve was in excess of Entergy New Orleans’s costs and should be considered in Entergy New Orleans’s application for certification of costs related to Hurricane Ida, as discussed below. Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area, including Entergy’s electrical grid. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, including the loss of 100% of Entergy New Orleans’s load and damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, including the loss of connectivity to the eastern interconnection. In September 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $39 million from its funded storm reserves. In June 2022, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that storm restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida of approximately $170 million were reasonable, necessary, and prudently incurred to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and to repair Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. Carrying costs through December 2022 related to Hurricane Ida restoration costs were $9 million. Additionally, Entergy New Orleans is requesting approval that the $39 million withdrawal from its funded storm reserve in September 2021 and $7 million in excess storm reserve escrow withdrawals related to Hurricane Zeta and prior miscellaneous storms are properly applied to Hurricane Ida storm restoration costs, the application of which reduces the amount to be recovered from Entergy New Orleans customers by $46 million. The City Council has not yet set a procedural schedule regarding the requested relief, though Entergy New Orleans requested resolution by the end of first quarter 2023. Entergy New Orleans intends to file with the City Council an application proposing a financing method for recovery of costs deemed eligible for recovery. Entergy Texas Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta caused extensive damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri also caused damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In July 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application for a financing order to approve the securitization of certain system restoration costs, which were approved by the PUCT as eligible for securitization in December 2021. In November 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement supporting the issuance of a financing order consistent with Entergy Texas’s application and with minor adjustments to certain upfront and ongoing costs to be incurred to facilitate the issuance and serving of system restoration bonds. In January 2022 the PUCT issued a financing order consistent with the unopposed settlement. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Texas reclassified $153 million from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In April 2022, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $290.85 million of senior secured system restoration bonds (securitization bonds). With the proceeds, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a system restoration charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. Entergy Texas began cost recovery through the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of May 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the April 2022 issuance of the securitization bonds.
Entergy Arkansas [Member] |
Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities 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 Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovered balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2021, Entergy Louisiana incurred extraordinary fuel costs associated with the February 2021 winter storms. To mitigate the effect of these costs on customer bills, in March 2021, Entergy Louisiana requested and the LPSC approved the deferral and recovery of $166 million in incremental fuel costs over five months beginning in April 2021. In April 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause charges in February 2021 that did not recommend any financial disallowances, but included several prospective recommendations. Responsive testimony was filed by one intervenor and the parties agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. In May 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment charges in February 2021 that did not propose any financial disallowances. The LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana have agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. To mitigate high electric bills, primarily driven by high summer usage and elevated gas prices, Entergy Louisiana has deferred approximately $135 million of fuel expense incurred in April, May, and June 2022 (as reflected on June, July, and August 2022 bills). Deferrals from April and May 2022 are expected to be recovered in the last four months of 2022 and June 2022 deferrals will be included in the over/under calculation of the fuel adjustment clause. Entergy Mississippi See “Complaints Against System Energy - System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of the settlement agreement filed with the FERC in June 2022. The settlement, which is contingent upon FERC approval, provides for a refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi. In July 2022 the MPSC directed the disbursement of settlement proceeds, ordering Entergy Mississippi to provide a one-time $80 bill credit to each of its approximately 460,000 retail customers to be effective during the September 2022 billing cycle, and to apply the remaining proceeds to Entergy Mississippi’s under-recovered deferred fuel balance. Entergy Texas In May 2022, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to implement an interim fuel surcharge to collect the cumulative under-recovery of approximately $51.7 million, including interest, of fuel and purchased power costs incurred from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. The under-recovery balance is primarily attributable to the impacts of Winter Storm Uri, including historically high natural gas prices, partially offset by settlements received by Entergy Texas from MISO related to Hurricane Laura. Entergy Texas proposed that the interim fuel surcharge be assessed over a period of six months beginning with the first billing cycle after the PUCT issues a final order, but no later than the first billing cycle of September 2022. Also in May 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed settlement resolving all issues in the proceeding. In addition, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a motion to admit evidence, to approve interim rates as requested in the initial application, and to remand the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the unopposed settlement. In August 2022 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting Entergy Texas’s motion, approving interim rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022, and remanding the case to the PUCT for final approval. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2022 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2023 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2023 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2021. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2023 projected year is 7.40% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $104.8 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 historical year was 8.38% resulting in a $15.2 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2023 projected year and 2021 historical year netting adjustment is $119.9 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase is limited to $79.3 million. COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $36.6 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) Retail Rates - Electric 2021 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2021 calendar year operations. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 8.33%, with a base formula rate plan revenue increase of $65.3 million. Other increases in formula rate plan revenue driven by reductions in Tax Cut and Jobs Act credits and additions to transmission and distribution plant in service reflected through the transmission recovery mechanism and distribution recovery mechanism are partly offset by an increase in net MISO revenues, leading to a net increase in formula rate plan revenue of $152.9 million. The effects of the changes to total formula rate plan revenue are different for each legacy company, primarily due to differences in the legacy companies’ capacity cost changes, including the effect of true-ups. Legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $86 million and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $66.9 million. Subject to refund and LPSC review, the resulting changes will be effective for bills rendered during the first billing cycle of September 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022. In June 2022, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed the 2022 test year filing that resulted in a total rate increase of $48.6 million. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2021 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 5.99% in calendar year 2021, which is below the look-back bandwidth, resulting in a $34.3 million increase in the formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2023. In July 2022 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective in August 2022. In July 2022 the MPSC directed Entergy Mississippi to flow $14.1 million of the power management rider over-recovery balance to customers beginning in August 2022 through December 2022 to mitigate the bill impact of the increase in formula rate plan revenues. Sunflower Solar As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order approving certification of the Sunflower Solar facility and its recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, subject to certain conditions. In July 2022, pursuant to the MPSC’s April 2020 order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a compliance filing to the MPSC with updated calculations of the impact of the Sunflower Solar facility on rate base and revenue requirement for the Sunflower Solar facility and benefits of the tax equity partnership. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s purchase of the Sunflower Solar facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $13.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Mississippi received approval to recover this regulatory asset through its formula rate plan rider over a three-year period beginning August 2022. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report, subsequently updated in a July 2022 filing, produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $42.1 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $34.1 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.3 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. In July 2022 the City Council’s advisors issued a report seeking a reduction to Entergy New Orleans’s proposed increase of approximately $17.1 million in total for electric and gas revenues. The parties have a 25-day period to attempt to reach an agreement on the final amount to increase revenues, with implementation of resulting rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council will set a procedural schedule that will extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 formula rate plan filing, Entergy New Orleans requested recovery of this regulatory asset over a five-year period beginning September 2022. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Retail Rates 2022 Base Rate Case In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed a base rate case with the PUCT seeking an increase in base rates of approximately $131.4 million. The base rate case was based on a 12-month test year ending December 31, 2021. Key drivers of the requested increase are changes in depreciation rates as the result of a depreciation study and an increase in the return on equity. In addition, Entergy Texas included capital additions placed into service for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021, including those additions currently reflected in the distribution and transmission cost recovery factor riders and the generation cost recovery rider, all of which would be reset to zero as a result of this proceeding. In July 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Also in July 2022, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings approved a procedural schedule with a hearing on the merits in December 2022. Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $66.1 million annually, or $15.1 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Energy Texas’s currently effective TCRF rider based on its capital invested in transmission between September 1, 2020 and July 31, 2021 and changes in approved transmission charges. In January 2022 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In February 2022 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested TCRF revenue requirement with interim rates effective March 2022. In February 2022 the ALJ granted the motion for interim rates, admitted evidence, and remanded the case to the PUCT for consideration of a final order at a future open meeting. In June 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. Concurrently with filing of the unanimous settlement agreement, Entergy Texas submitted an agreed motion to admit evidence and remand the case to the PUCT for review and consideration of the settlement agreement, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 base rate case filing, Entergy Texas requested recovery of its regulatory asset over a three-year period beginning December 2022. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. In June 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion asserting that it is entitled to summary judgment because Entergy Arkansas’s position that the APSC’s order is pre-empted by the filed rate doctrine and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause is premised on facts that are not subject to genuine dispute. In July 2022, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc., an industrial customer association, filed a motion to intervene and to hold Entergy Arkansas’s motion for summary judgment in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion to intervene. Entergy Arkansas filed a consolidated opposition to both motions. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. See “System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement related to the pending proceedings before the FERC. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through June 30, 2022 is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $139 million through June 30, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that: (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In April 2022, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony in response to the FERC trial staff’s recommendations of refunds for the accumulated deferred income taxes issues and proposed modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement for the executive incentive compensation issues. In June 2022 the FERC trial staff submitted revised answering testimony, in which it recommended additional refunds associated with the accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. Based on the testimony revisions, the FERC trial staff’s recommended refunds total $106.6 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC awarded interest. Also in June 2022, System Energy filed revised and supplemental cross-answering testimony to respond to the changes in the FERC trial staff’s testimony and oppose its revised recommendation. In May 2022 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed rebuttal testimony. The LPSC’s testimony asserts new claims, including that: (1) certain of the sale-leaseback transaction costs may have been imprudently incurred; (2) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with sale-leaseback transaction costs should have been included in rate base; (3) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with federal investment tax credits should have been excluded from rate base; (4) monthly net operating loss accumulated deferred income taxes should have been excluded from rate base; and (5) several categories of proposed rate changes, including executive incentive compensation, air travel, industry dues, and legal costs, also warrant historical refunds. The LPSC’s rebuttal testimony argues that refunds for the alleged tariff violations and other claims must be calculated by rerunning the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate; however, it includes estimates of refunds associated with some, but not all, of its claims, totaling $286 million without interest. The City Council’s rebuttal testimony also proposes a new, alternate theory and claim for relief regarding System Energy’s participation in the Entergy System money pool, under which it calculates estimated refunds of approximately $51.7 million. The APSC’s rebuttal testimony agrees with the LPSC’s direct testimony that retained earnings should be adjusted in a comprehensive refund calculation. The testimony quantifies the estimated impacts of three issues: (1) a $1.5 million reduction in the revenue requirement under the Unit Power Sales Agreement if System Energy’s borrowings from the money pool are included in short-term debt; (2) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement if System Energy’s allocated share of money pool earnings are credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement; and (3) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement for every $50 million of refunds ordered in a given year, without interest. In June 2022 a new procedural schedule was adopted, providing for additional rounds of testimony, for the hearing to begin in September 2022, and for the initial decision to be issued in February 2023. In July 2022, System Energy filed responsive rebuttal testimony responding to the new claims in the LPSC’s and the City Council’s rebuttal testimony. Also in July 2022 the LPSC filed supplemental rebuttal testimony responding to System Energy’s revised cross-answering testimony. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million in refunds, excluding interest which will be calculated after a FERC order is issued; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. System Energy Settlement with the MPSC In June 2022, System Energy, Entergy Mississippi, and additional named Entergy parties involved in thirteen docketed proceedings before the FERC filed with the FERC a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement. The settlement memorializes the Entergy parties’ agreement with the MPSC to globally resolve all actual and potential claims between the Entergy parties and the MPSC associated with those FERC proceedings and with System Energy’s past implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is a FERC-jurisdictional formula rate tariff for sales of energy and capacity from System Energy’s owned and leased share of Grand Gulf to Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Mississippi purchases the greatest single amount, nearly 40% of System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf, after its additional purchases from affiliates are considered. The settlement therefore limits System Energy’s overall refund exposure associated with the identified proceedings because they will be resolved completely as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC. The FERC proceedings that are resolved as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC include the Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints, the Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue, the Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint, and the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint, all of which are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K, and updated above. They also include the proceedings concerning System Energy’s return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the proceedings established to address System Energy’s October 2020 and December 2020 Federal Power Act section 205 filings to provide credits to customers related to the IRS’s decision as to the uncertain decommissioning tax position, also as all discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K. The settlement also resolves the MPSC’s involvement in the formal challenge filed by the retail regulators of System Energy’s customers in connection with the implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement annual formula rate protocols for the 2020 test year, which is discussed above. The settlement provides for a black-box refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi, which will be paid within 120 days of the settlement’s effective date (either the date of the FERC approval of the settlement without material modification, or the date that all settling parties agree to accept modifications or otherwise modify the settlement in response to a proposed material modification by the FERC). In addition, beginning with the July 2022 service month, the settlement provides for Entergy Mississippi’s bills from System Energy to be adjusted to reflect: an authorized rate of return on equity of 9.65%, a capital structure not to exceed 52% equity, a rate base reduction for the advance collection of sale-leaseback rental costs, and the exclusion of certain long-term incentive plan performance unit costs from rates. The settlement is expressly contingent upon the approval of the FERC and the MPSC. It was approved by the MPSC in June 2022. The remaining retail regulators of Entergy’s utility operating company purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (the APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council) may elect to join the settlement. If all of them elect to do so under the terms of the settlement, then the total black-box refund payment by System Energy would be $588.25 million, and the prospective rate adjustments would apply to all purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. If the FERC approves the settlement in accordance with its terms, then it will become binding upon the Entergy parties and the MPSC even if no additional retail regulators elect to join the settlement. The settlement will have no effect on the rights of non-settling parties to the identified FERC proceedings. System Energy previously recorded a provision and associated liability of $37 million for elements of the applicable litigation. In June 2022, System Energy recorded a regulatory charge of $551 million ($413 million net-of-tax), increasing the regulatory liability to $588 million, which consists of $235 million for the settlement with the MPSC and $353 million for potential future refunds to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. In August 2022 comments on the settlement were filed by the APSC, the LPSC, the City Council, the FERC trial staff, and a group that refers to itself as the Louisiana Stakeholders, which are three entities that intervened in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding but not any other proceedings that are part of the settlement. The APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council do not intend to join the settlement, but they do not oppose its approval as between the MPSC and the Entergy parties. The FERC trial staff concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. The Louisiana Stakeholders oppose the settlement, alleging it does not resolve the issues raised in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding. Reply comments will be filed later in August 2022. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana sought an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.942 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In May 2022 the securitization financing closed, resulting in the issuance of $3.194 billion principal amount of bonds by Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA), a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. The securitization was authorized pursuant to the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation Act, Part VIII of Chapter 9 of Title 45 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana legislature approved in 2021. The LCDA loaned the proceeds to the LURC. Pursuant to Act 293, the LURC contributed the net bond proceeds to a State legislatively authorized and LURC-sponsored trust, Restoration Law Trust I (the storm trust). Pursuant to Act 293, the net proceeds of the bonds were used by the storm trust to purchase 31,635,718.7221 Class A preferred, non-voting membership interest units (the preferred interests) issued by Entergy Finance Company, LLC, a majority-owned indirect subsidiary of Entergy. Entergy Finance Company is required to make annual distributions (dividends) commencing on December 15, 2022 on the preferred interests issued to the storm trust. These annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana and the LURC, as beneficiaries of the storm trust. Specifically, 1% of the annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to the LURC, for the benefit of customers, and 99% will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana, net of storm trust expenses. The preferred interests have a stated annual cumulative cash dividend rate of 7% and a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The terms of the preferred interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Finance Company is subject. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA. The bonds are secured by system restoration property, which is the right granted by law to the LURC to collect a system restoration charge from customers. The system restoration charge is adjusted at least semi-annually to ensure that it is sufficient to service the bonds. Entergy Louisiana collects the system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy Louisiana began collecting the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of June 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as a billing and collection agent for the LCDA and the LURC. In the remote possibility that the system restoration charge, as well as any funds in the excess subaccount and funds in the debt service reserve account, are insufficient to service the bonds resulting in a payment default, the storm trust is required to liquidate Entergy Finance Company preferred interests in an amount equal to what would be required to cure the default. The estimated value of this indirect guarantee is immaterial. From the proceeds from the issuance of the preferred membership interests, Entergy Finance Company distributed $1.4 billion to its parent, Entergy Holdings Company, LLC. Subsequently, Entergy Holdings Company liquidated, distributing the $1.4 billion it received from Entergy Finance Company to Entergy Louisiana as holder of 6,843,780.24 units of Class A, 4,126,940.15 units of Class B, and 2,935,152.69 units of Class C preferred membership interests. Entergy Louisiana had acquired these preferred membership interests with proceeds from previous securitizations of storm restoration costs. Entergy Finance Company loaned the remaining $1.7 billion from the preferred membership interests proceeds to Entergy which used the cash to redeem $650 million of 4.00% Series senior notes due July 2022 and indirectly contributed $1 billion to Entergy Louisiana as a capital contribution. Entergy Louisiana used the $1 billion capital contribution to fund its Hurricane Ida escrow account and subsequently withdrew the $1 billion from the escrow account. With a portion of the $1 billion withdrawn from the escrow account and the $1.4 billion from the Entergy Holdings Company liquidation, Entergy Louisiana deposited $290 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for future storms, used $1.2 billion to repay its unsecured term loan due June 2023, and used $435 million to redeem a portion of its 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023. As discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements herein, the securitization resulted in recognition of a reduction of income tax expense of approximately $290 million by Entergy Louisiana. Entergy’s recognition of reduced income tax expense was offset by other tax charges resulting in a net reduction of income tax expense of $283 million. I n recognition of obligations related to an LPSC ancillary order issued as part of the securitization regulatory proceeding, Entergy Louisiana recorded a $224 million ($165 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to share the benefits of the securitization with customers. As discussed in Note 12 to the financial statements herein, Entergy Louisiana consolidates the storm trust as a variable interest entity and the LURC’s 1% beneficial interest is shown as noncontrolling interest in the financial statements. In second quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana recorded a charge of $31.6 million in other income to reflect the LURC’s beneficial interest in the trust. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs of $57 million through December 2022, Entergy Louisiana is seeking an LPSC determination that $2.60 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As part of this filing, Entergy Louisiana also is seeking an LPSC determination that an additional $32 million in costs associated with the restoration of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta as well as Winter Storm Uri was prudently incurred. This amount is exclusive of the requested $3 million in carrying costs through December 2022. In total, Entergy Louisiana is requesting an LPSC determination that $2.64 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As discussed above, in March 2022 the LPSC approved financing of a $1 billion storm escrow account from which funds were withdrawn to finance costs associated with Hurricane Ida restoration. In June 2022, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. A procedural schedule has been established with a hearing in December 2022. Entergy New Orleans Hurricane Zeta As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In March 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $44 million from its funded storm reserves. In May 2021, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that its system restoration costs associated with Hurricane Zeta of approximately $36 million, which included $7 million in estimated costs, were reasonable and necessary to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. In May 2022 the City Council advisors issued a report recommending that the City Council find that Entergy New Orleans acted prudently in restoring service following Hurricane Zeta and approximately $33 million in storm restoration costs were prudently incurred and recoverable. Additionally, the advisors concluded that approximately $7 million of the $44 million withdrawn from its funded storm reserve was in excess of Entergy New Orleans’s costs and should be considered in Entergy New Orleans’s application for certification of costs related to Hurricane Ida, as discussed below. Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area, including Entergy’s electrical grid. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, including the loss of 100% of Entergy New Orleans’s load and damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, including the loss of connectivity to the eastern interconnection. In September 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $39 million from its funded storm reserves. In June 2022, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that storm restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida of approximately $170 million were reasonable, necessary, and prudently incurred to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and to repair Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. Carrying costs through December 2022 related to Hurricane Ida restoration costs were $9 million. Additionally, Entergy New Orleans is requesting approval that the $39 million withdrawal from its funded storm reserve in September 2021 and $7 million in excess storm reserve escrow withdrawals related to Hurricane Zeta and prior miscellaneous storms are properly applied to Hurricane Ida storm restoration costs, the application of which reduces the amount to be recovered from Entergy New Orleans customers by $46 million. The City Council has not yet set a procedural schedule regarding the requested relief, though Entergy New Orleans requested resolution by the end of first quarter 2023. Entergy New Orleans intends to file with the City Council an application proposing a financing method for recovery of costs deemed eligible for recovery. Entergy Texas Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta caused extensive damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri also caused damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In July 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application for a financing order to approve the securitization of certain system restoration costs, which were approved by the PUCT as eligible for securitization in December 2021. In November 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement supporting the issuance of a financing order consistent with Entergy Texas’s application and with minor adjustments to certain upfront and ongoing costs to be incurred to facilitate the issuance and serving of system restoration bonds. In January 2022 the PUCT issued a financing order consistent with the unopposed settlement. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Texas reclassified $153 million from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In April 2022, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $290.85 million of senior secured system restoration bonds (securitization bonds). With the proceeds, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a system restoration charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. Entergy Texas began cost recovery through the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of May 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the April 2022 issuance of the securitization bonds.
Entergy Louisiana [Member] |
Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities 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 Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovered balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2021, Entergy Louisiana incurred extraordinary fuel costs associated with the February 2021 winter storms. To mitigate the effect of these costs on customer bills, in March 2021, Entergy Louisiana requested and the LPSC approved the deferral and recovery of $166 million in incremental fuel costs over five months beginning in April 2021. In April 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause charges in February 2021 that did not recommend any financial disallowances, but included several prospective recommendations. Responsive testimony was filed by one intervenor and the parties agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. In May 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment charges in February 2021 that did not propose any financial disallowances. The LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana have agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. To mitigate high electric bills, primarily driven by high summer usage and elevated gas prices, Entergy Louisiana has deferred approximately $135 million of fuel expense incurred in April, May, and June 2022 (as reflected on June, July, and August 2022 bills). Deferrals from April and May 2022 are expected to be recovered in the last four months of 2022 and June 2022 deferrals will be included in the over/under calculation of the fuel adjustment clause. Entergy Mississippi See “Complaints Against System Energy - System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of the settlement agreement filed with the FERC in June 2022. The settlement, which is contingent upon FERC approval, provides for a refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi. In July 2022 the MPSC directed the disbursement of settlement proceeds, ordering Entergy Mississippi to provide a one-time $80 bill credit to each of its approximately 460,000 retail customers to be effective during the September 2022 billing cycle, and to apply the remaining proceeds to Entergy Mississippi’s under-recovered deferred fuel balance. Entergy Texas In May 2022, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to implement an interim fuel surcharge to collect the cumulative under-recovery of approximately $51.7 million, including interest, of fuel and purchased power costs incurred from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. The under-recovery balance is primarily attributable to the impacts of Winter Storm Uri, including historically high natural gas prices, partially offset by settlements received by Entergy Texas from MISO related to Hurricane Laura. Entergy Texas proposed that the interim fuel surcharge be assessed over a period of six months beginning with the first billing cycle after the PUCT issues a final order, but no later than the first billing cycle of September 2022. Also in May 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed settlement resolving all issues in the proceeding. In addition, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a motion to admit evidence, to approve interim rates as requested in the initial application, and to remand the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the unopposed settlement. In August 2022 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting Entergy Texas’s motion, approving interim rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022, and remanding the case to the PUCT for final approval. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2022 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2023 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2023 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2021. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2023 projected year is 7.40% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $104.8 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 historical year was 8.38% resulting in a $15.2 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2023 projected year and 2021 historical year netting adjustment is $119.9 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase is limited to $79.3 million. COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $36.6 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) Retail Rates - Electric 2021 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2021 calendar year operations. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 8.33%, with a base formula rate plan revenue increase of $65.3 million. Other increases in formula rate plan revenue driven by reductions in Tax Cut and Jobs Act credits and additions to transmission and distribution plant in service reflected through the transmission recovery mechanism and distribution recovery mechanism are partly offset by an increase in net MISO revenues, leading to a net increase in formula rate plan revenue of $152.9 million. The effects of the changes to total formula rate plan revenue are different for each legacy company, primarily due to differences in the legacy companies’ capacity cost changes, including the effect of true-ups. Legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $86 million and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $66.9 million. Subject to refund and LPSC review, the resulting changes will be effective for bills rendered during the first billing cycle of September 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022. In June 2022, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed the 2022 test year filing that resulted in a total rate increase of $48.6 million. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2021 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 5.99% in calendar year 2021, which is below the look-back bandwidth, resulting in a $34.3 million increase in the formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2023. In July 2022 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective in August 2022. In July 2022 the MPSC directed Entergy Mississippi to flow $14.1 million of the power management rider over-recovery balance to customers beginning in August 2022 through December 2022 to mitigate the bill impact of the increase in formula rate plan revenues. Sunflower Solar As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order approving certification of the Sunflower Solar facility and its recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, subject to certain conditions. In July 2022, pursuant to the MPSC’s April 2020 order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a compliance filing to the MPSC with updated calculations of the impact of the Sunflower Solar facility on rate base and revenue requirement for the Sunflower Solar facility and benefits of the tax equity partnership. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s purchase of the Sunflower Solar facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $13.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Mississippi received approval to recover this regulatory asset through its formula rate plan rider over a three-year period beginning August 2022. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report, subsequently updated in a July 2022 filing, produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $42.1 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $34.1 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.3 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. In July 2022 the City Council’s advisors issued a report seeking a reduction to Entergy New Orleans’s proposed increase of approximately $17.1 million in total for electric and gas revenues. The parties have a 25-day period to attempt to reach an agreement on the final amount to increase revenues, with implementation of resulting rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council will set a procedural schedule that will extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 formula rate plan filing, Entergy New Orleans requested recovery of this regulatory asset over a five-year period beginning September 2022. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Retail Rates 2022 Base Rate Case In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed a base rate case with the PUCT seeking an increase in base rates of approximately $131.4 million. The base rate case was based on a 12-month test year ending December 31, 2021. Key drivers of the requested increase are changes in depreciation rates as the result of a depreciation study and an increase in the return on equity. In addition, Entergy Texas included capital additions placed into service for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021, including those additions currently reflected in the distribution and transmission cost recovery factor riders and the generation cost recovery rider, all of which would be reset to zero as a result of this proceeding. In July 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Also in July 2022, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings approved a procedural schedule with a hearing on the merits in December 2022. Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $66.1 million annually, or $15.1 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Energy Texas’s currently effective TCRF rider based on its capital invested in transmission between September 1, 2020 and July 31, 2021 and changes in approved transmission charges. In January 2022 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In February 2022 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested TCRF revenue requirement with interim rates effective March 2022. In February 2022 the ALJ granted the motion for interim rates, admitted evidence, and remanded the case to the PUCT for consideration of a final order at a future open meeting. In June 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. Concurrently with filing of the unanimous settlement agreement, Entergy Texas submitted an agreed motion to admit evidence and remand the case to the PUCT for review and consideration of the settlement agreement, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 base rate case filing, Entergy Texas requested recovery of its regulatory asset over a three-year period beginning December 2022. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. In June 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion asserting that it is entitled to summary judgment because Entergy Arkansas’s position that the APSC’s order is pre-empted by the filed rate doctrine and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause is premised on facts that are not subject to genuine dispute. In July 2022, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc., an industrial customer association, filed a motion to intervene and to hold Entergy Arkansas’s motion for summary judgment in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion to intervene. Entergy Arkansas filed a consolidated opposition to both motions. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. See “System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement related to the pending proceedings before the FERC. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through June 30, 2022 is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $139 million through June 30, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that: (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In April 2022, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony in response to the FERC trial staff’s recommendations of refunds for the accumulated deferred income taxes issues and proposed modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement for the executive incentive compensation issues. In June 2022 the FERC trial staff submitted revised answering testimony, in which it recommended additional refunds associated with the accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. Based on the testimony revisions, the FERC trial staff’s recommended refunds total $106.6 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC awarded interest. Also in June 2022, System Energy filed revised and supplemental cross-answering testimony to respond to the changes in the FERC trial staff’s testimony and oppose its revised recommendation. In May 2022 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed rebuttal testimony. The LPSC’s testimony asserts new claims, including that: (1) certain of the sale-leaseback transaction costs may have been imprudently incurred; (2) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with sale-leaseback transaction costs should have been included in rate base; (3) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with federal investment tax credits should have been excluded from rate base; (4) monthly net operating loss accumulated deferred income taxes should have been excluded from rate base; and (5) several categories of proposed rate changes, including executive incentive compensation, air travel, industry dues, and legal costs, also warrant historical refunds. The LPSC’s rebuttal testimony argues that refunds for the alleged tariff violations and other claims must be calculated by rerunning the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate; however, it includes estimates of refunds associated with some, but not all, of its claims, totaling $286 million without interest. The City Council’s rebuttal testimony also proposes a new, alternate theory and claim for relief regarding System Energy’s participation in the Entergy System money pool, under which it calculates estimated refunds of approximately $51.7 million. The APSC’s rebuttal testimony agrees with the LPSC’s direct testimony that retained earnings should be adjusted in a comprehensive refund calculation. The testimony quantifies the estimated impacts of three issues: (1) a $1.5 million reduction in the revenue requirement under the Unit Power Sales Agreement if System Energy’s borrowings from the money pool are included in short-term debt; (2) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement if System Energy’s allocated share of money pool earnings are credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement; and (3) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement for every $50 million of refunds ordered in a given year, without interest. In June 2022 a new procedural schedule was adopted, providing for additional rounds of testimony, for the hearing to begin in September 2022, and for the initial decision to be issued in February 2023. In July 2022, System Energy filed responsive rebuttal testimony responding to the new claims in the LPSC’s and the City Council’s rebuttal testimony. Also in July 2022 the LPSC filed supplemental rebuttal testimony responding to System Energy’s revised cross-answering testimony. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million in refunds, excluding interest which will be calculated after a FERC order is issued; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. System Energy Settlement with the MPSC In June 2022, System Energy, Entergy Mississippi, and additional named Entergy parties involved in thirteen docketed proceedings before the FERC filed with the FERC a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement. The settlement memorializes the Entergy parties’ agreement with the MPSC to globally resolve all actual and potential claims between the Entergy parties and the MPSC associated with those FERC proceedings and with System Energy’s past implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is a FERC-jurisdictional formula rate tariff for sales of energy and capacity from System Energy’s owned and leased share of Grand Gulf to Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Mississippi purchases the greatest single amount, nearly 40% of System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf, after its additional purchases from affiliates are considered. The settlement therefore limits System Energy’s overall refund exposure associated with the identified proceedings because they will be resolved completely as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC. The FERC proceedings that are resolved as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC include the Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints, the Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue, the Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint, and the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint, all of which are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K, and updated above. They also include the proceedings concerning System Energy’s return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the proceedings established to address System Energy’s October 2020 and December 2020 Federal Power Act section 205 filings to provide credits to customers related to the IRS’s decision as to the uncertain decommissioning tax position, also as all discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K. The settlement also resolves the MPSC’s involvement in the formal challenge filed by the retail regulators of System Energy’s customers in connection with the implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement annual formula rate protocols for the 2020 test year, which is discussed above. The settlement provides for a black-box refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi, which will be paid within 120 days of the settlement’s effective date (either the date of the FERC approval of the settlement without material modification, or the date that all settling parties agree to accept modifications or otherwise modify the settlement in response to a proposed material modification by the FERC). In addition, beginning with the July 2022 service month, the settlement provides for Entergy Mississippi’s bills from System Energy to be adjusted to reflect: an authorized rate of return on equity of 9.65%, a capital structure not to exceed 52% equity, a rate base reduction for the advance collection of sale-leaseback rental costs, and the exclusion of certain long-term incentive plan performance unit costs from rates. The settlement is expressly contingent upon the approval of the FERC and the MPSC. It was approved by the MPSC in June 2022. The remaining retail regulators of Entergy’s utility operating company purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (the APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council) may elect to join the settlement. If all of them elect to do so under the terms of the settlement, then the total black-box refund payment by System Energy would be $588.25 million, and the prospective rate adjustments would apply to all purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. If the FERC approves the settlement in accordance with its terms, then it will become binding upon the Entergy parties and the MPSC even if no additional retail regulators elect to join the settlement. The settlement will have no effect on the rights of non-settling parties to the identified FERC proceedings. System Energy previously recorded a provision and associated liability of $37 million for elements of the applicable litigation. In June 2022, System Energy recorded a regulatory charge of $551 million ($413 million net-of-tax), increasing the regulatory liability to $588 million, which consists of $235 million for the settlement with the MPSC and $353 million for potential future refunds to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. In August 2022 comments on the settlement were filed by the APSC, the LPSC, the City Council, the FERC trial staff, and a group that refers to itself as the Louisiana Stakeholders, which are three entities that intervened in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding but not any other proceedings that are part of the settlement. The APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council do not intend to join the settlement, but they do not oppose its approval as between the MPSC and the Entergy parties. The FERC trial staff concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. The Louisiana Stakeholders oppose the settlement, alleging it does not resolve the issues raised in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding. Reply comments will be filed later in August 2022. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana sought an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.942 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In May 2022 the securitization financing closed, resulting in the issuance of $3.194 billion principal amount of bonds by Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA), a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. The securitization was authorized pursuant to the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation Act, Part VIII of Chapter 9 of Title 45 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana legislature approved in 2021. The LCDA loaned the proceeds to the LURC. Pursuant to Act 293, the LURC contributed the net bond proceeds to a State legislatively authorized and LURC-sponsored trust, Restoration Law Trust I (the storm trust). Pursuant to Act 293, the net proceeds of the bonds were used by the storm trust to purchase 31,635,718.7221 Class A preferred, non-voting membership interest units (the preferred interests) issued by Entergy Finance Company, LLC, a majority-owned indirect subsidiary of Entergy. Entergy Finance Company is required to make annual distributions (dividends) commencing on December 15, 2022 on the preferred interests issued to the storm trust. These annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana and the LURC, as beneficiaries of the storm trust. Specifically, 1% of the annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to the LURC, for the benefit of customers, and 99% will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana, net of storm trust expenses. The preferred interests have a stated annual cumulative cash dividend rate of 7% and a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The terms of the preferred interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Finance Company is subject. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA. The bonds are secured by system restoration property, which is the right granted by law to the LURC to collect a system restoration charge from customers. The system restoration charge is adjusted at least semi-annually to ensure that it is sufficient to service the bonds. Entergy Louisiana collects the system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy Louisiana began collecting the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of June 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as a billing and collection agent for the LCDA and the LURC. In the remote possibility that the system restoration charge, as well as any funds in the excess subaccount and funds in the debt service reserve account, are insufficient to service the bonds resulting in a payment default, the storm trust is required to liquidate Entergy Finance Company preferred interests in an amount equal to what would be required to cure the default. The estimated value of this indirect guarantee is immaterial. From the proceeds from the issuance of the preferred membership interests, Entergy Finance Company distributed $1.4 billion to its parent, Entergy Holdings Company, LLC. Subsequently, Entergy Holdings Company liquidated, distributing the $1.4 billion it received from Entergy Finance Company to Entergy Louisiana as holder of 6,843,780.24 units of Class A, 4,126,940.15 units of Class B, and 2,935,152.69 units of Class C preferred membership interests. Entergy Louisiana had acquired these preferred membership interests with proceeds from previous securitizations of storm restoration costs. Entergy Finance Company loaned the remaining $1.7 billion from the preferred membership interests proceeds to Entergy which used the cash to redeem $650 million of 4.00% Series senior notes due July 2022 and indirectly contributed $1 billion to Entergy Louisiana as a capital contribution. Entergy Louisiana used the $1 billion capital contribution to fund its Hurricane Ida escrow account and subsequently withdrew the $1 billion from the escrow account. With a portion of the $1 billion withdrawn from the escrow account and the $1.4 billion from the Entergy Holdings Company liquidation, Entergy Louisiana deposited $290 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for future storms, used $1.2 billion to repay its unsecured term loan due June 2023, and used $435 million to redeem a portion of its 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023. As discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements herein, the securitization resulted in recognition of a reduction of income tax expense of approximately $290 million by Entergy Louisiana. Entergy’s recognition of reduced income tax expense was offset by other tax charges resulting in a net reduction of income tax expense of $283 million. I n recognition of obligations related to an LPSC ancillary order issued as part of the securitization regulatory proceeding, Entergy Louisiana recorded a $224 million ($165 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to share the benefits of the securitization with customers. As discussed in Note 12 to the financial statements herein, Entergy Louisiana consolidates the storm trust as a variable interest entity and the LURC’s 1% beneficial interest is shown as noncontrolling interest in the financial statements. In second quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana recorded a charge of $31.6 million in other income to reflect the LURC’s beneficial interest in the trust. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs of $57 million through December 2022, Entergy Louisiana is seeking an LPSC determination that $2.60 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As part of this filing, Entergy Louisiana also is seeking an LPSC determination that an additional $32 million in costs associated with the restoration of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta as well as Winter Storm Uri was prudently incurred. This amount is exclusive of the requested $3 million in carrying costs through December 2022. In total, Entergy Louisiana is requesting an LPSC determination that $2.64 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As discussed above, in March 2022 the LPSC approved financing of a $1 billion storm escrow account from which funds were withdrawn to finance costs associated with Hurricane Ida restoration. In June 2022, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. A procedural schedule has been established with a hearing in December 2022. Entergy New Orleans Hurricane Zeta As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In March 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $44 million from its funded storm reserves. In May 2021, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that its system restoration costs associated with Hurricane Zeta of approximately $36 million, which included $7 million in estimated costs, were reasonable and necessary to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. In May 2022 the City Council advisors issued a report recommending that the City Council find that Entergy New Orleans acted prudently in restoring service following Hurricane Zeta and approximately $33 million in storm restoration costs were prudently incurred and recoverable. Additionally, the advisors concluded that approximately $7 million of the $44 million withdrawn from its funded storm reserve was in excess of Entergy New Orleans’s costs and should be considered in Entergy New Orleans’s application for certification of costs related to Hurricane Ida, as discussed below. Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area, including Entergy’s electrical grid. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, including the loss of 100% of Entergy New Orleans’s load and damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, including the loss of connectivity to the eastern interconnection. In September 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $39 million from its funded storm reserves. In June 2022, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that storm restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida of approximately $170 million were reasonable, necessary, and prudently incurred to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and to repair Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. Carrying costs through December 2022 related to Hurricane Ida restoration costs were $9 million. Additionally, Entergy New Orleans is requesting approval that the $39 million withdrawal from its funded storm reserve in September 2021 and $7 million in excess storm reserve escrow withdrawals related to Hurricane Zeta and prior miscellaneous storms are properly applied to Hurricane Ida storm restoration costs, the application of which reduces the amount to be recovered from Entergy New Orleans customers by $46 million. The City Council has not yet set a procedural schedule regarding the requested relief, though Entergy New Orleans requested resolution by the end of first quarter 2023. Entergy New Orleans intends to file with the City Council an application proposing a financing method for recovery of costs deemed eligible for recovery. Entergy Texas Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta caused extensive damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri also caused damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In July 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application for a financing order to approve the securitization of certain system restoration costs, which were approved by the PUCT as eligible for securitization in December 2021. In November 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement supporting the issuance of a financing order consistent with Entergy Texas’s application and with minor adjustments to certain upfront and ongoing costs to be incurred to facilitate the issuance and serving of system restoration bonds. In January 2022 the PUCT issued a financing order consistent with the unopposed settlement. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Texas reclassified $153 million from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In April 2022, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $290.85 million of senior secured system restoration bonds (securitization bonds). With the proceeds, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a system restoration charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. Entergy Texas began cost recovery through the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of May 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the April 2022 issuance of the securitization bonds.
Entergy Mississippi [Member] |
Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities 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 Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovered balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2021, Entergy Louisiana incurred extraordinary fuel costs associated with the February 2021 winter storms. To mitigate the effect of these costs on customer bills, in March 2021, Entergy Louisiana requested and the LPSC approved the deferral and recovery of $166 million in incremental fuel costs over five months beginning in April 2021. In April 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause charges in February 2021 that did not recommend any financial disallowances, but included several prospective recommendations. Responsive testimony was filed by one intervenor and the parties agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. In May 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment charges in February 2021 that did not propose any financial disallowances. The LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana have agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. To mitigate high electric bills, primarily driven by high summer usage and elevated gas prices, Entergy Louisiana has deferred approximately $135 million of fuel expense incurred in April, May, and June 2022 (as reflected on June, July, and August 2022 bills). Deferrals from April and May 2022 are expected to be recovered in the last four months of 2022 and June 2022 deferrals will be included in the over/under calculation of the fuel adjustment clause. Entergy Mississippi See “Complaints Against System Energy - System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of the settlement agreement filed with the FERC in June 2022. The settlement, which is contingent upon FERC approval, provides for a refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi. In July 2022 the MPSC directed the disbursement of settlement proceeds, ordering Entergy Mississippi to provide a one-time $80 bill credit to each of its approximately 460,000 retail customers to be effective during the September 2022 billing cycle, and to apply the remaining proceeds to Entergy Mississippi’s under-recovered deferred fuel balance. Entergy Texas In May 2022, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to implement an interim fuel surcharge to collect the cumulative under-recovery of approximately $51.7 million, including interest, of fuel and purchased power costs incurred from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. The under-recovery balance is primarily attributable to the impacts of Winter Storm Uri, including historically high natural gas prices, partially offset by settlements received by Entergy Texas from MISO related to Hurricane Laura. Entergy Texas proposed that the interim fuel surcharge be assessed over a period of six months beginning with the first billing cycle after the PUCT issues a final order, but no later than the first billing cycle of September 2022. Also in May 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed settlement resolving all issues in the proceeding. In addition, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a motion to admit evidence, to approve interim rates as requested in the initial application, and to remand the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the unopposed settlement. In August 2022 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting Entergy Texas’s motion, approving interim rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022, and remanding the case to the PUCT for final approval. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2022 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2023 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2023 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2021. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2023 projected year is 7.40% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $104.8 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 historical year was 8.38% resulting in a $15.2 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2023 projected year and 2021 historical year netting adjustment is $119.9 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase is limited to $79.3 million. COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $36.6 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) Retail Rates - Electric 2021 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2021 calendar year operations. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 8.33%, with a base formula rate plan revenue increase of $65.3 million. Other increases in formula rate plan revenue driven by reductions in Tax Cut and Jobs Act credits and additions to transmission and distribution plant in service reflected through the transmission recovery mechanism and distribution recovery mechanism are partly offset by an increase in net MISO revenues, leading to a net increase in formula rate plan revenue of $152.9 million. The effects of the changes to total formula rate plan revenue are different for each legacy company, primarily due to differences in the legacy companies’ capacity cost changes, including the effect of true-ups. Legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $86 million and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $66.9 million. Subject to refund and LPSC review, the resulting changes will be effective for bills rendered during the first billing cycle of September 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022. In June 2022, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed the 2022 test year filing that resulted in a total rate increase of $48.6 million. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2021 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 5.99% in calendar year 2021, which is below the look-back bandwidth, resulting in a $34.3 million increase in the formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2023. In July 2022 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective in August 2022. In July 2022 the MPSC directed Entergy Mississippi to flow $14.1 million of the power management rider over-recovery balance to customers beginning in August 2022 through December 2022 to mitigate the bill impact of the increase in formula rate plan revenues. Sunflower Solar As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order approving certification of the Sunflower Solar facility and its recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, subject to certain conditions. In July 2022, pursuant to the MPSC’s April 2020 order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a compliance filing to the MPSC with updated calculations of the impact of the Sunflower Solar facility on rate base and revenue requirement for the Sunflower Solar facility and benefits of the tax equity partnership. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s purchase of the Sunflower Solar facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $13.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Mississippi received approval to recover this regulatory asset through its formula rate plan rider over a three-year period beginning August 2022. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report, subsequently updated in a July 2022 filing, produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $42.1 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $34.1 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.3 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. In July 2022 the City Council’s advisors issued a report seeking a reduction to Entergy New Orleans’s proposed increase of approximately $17.1 million in total for electric and gas revenues. The parties have a 25-day period to attempt to reach an agreement on the final amount to increase revenues, with implementation of resulting rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council will set a procedural schedule that will extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 formula rate plan filing, Entergy New Orleans requested recovery of this regulatory asset over a five-year period beginning September 2022. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Retail Rates 2022 Base Rate Case In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed a base rate case with the PUCT seeking an increase in base rates of approximately $131.4 million. The base rate case was based on a 12-month test year ending December 31, 2021. Key drivers of the requested increase are changes in depreciation rates as the result of a depreciation study and an increase in the return on equity. In addition, Entergy Texas included capital additions placed into service for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021, including those additions currently reflected in the distribution and transmission cost recovery factor riders and the generation cost recovery rider, all of which would be reset to zero as a result of this proceeding. In July 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Also in July 2022, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings approved a procedural schedule with a hearing on the merits in December 2022. Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $66.1 million annually, or $15.1 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Energy Texas’s currently effective TCRF rider based on its capital invested in transmission between September 1, 2020 and July 31, 2021 and changes in approved transmission charges. In January 2022 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In February 2022 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested TCRF revenue requirement with interim rates effective March 2022. In February 2022 the ALJ granted the motion for interim rates, admitted evidence, and remanded the case to the PUCT for consideration of a final order at a future open meeting. In June 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. Concurrently with filing of the unanimous settlement agreement, Entergy Texas submitted an agreed motion to admit evidence and remand the case to the PUCT for review and consideration of the settlement agreement, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 base rate case filing, Entergy Texas requested recovery of its regulatory asset over a three-year period beginning December 2022. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. In June 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion asserting that it is entitled to summary judgment because Entergy Arkansas’s position that the APSC’s order is pre-empted by the filed rate doctrine and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause is premised on facts that are not subject to genuine dispute. In July 2022, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc., an industrial customer association, filed a motion to intervene and to hold Entergy Arkansas’s motion for summary judgment in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion to intervene. Entergy Arkansas filed a consolidated opposition to both motions. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. See “System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement related to the pending proceedings before the FERC. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through June 30, 2022 is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $139 million through June 30, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that: (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In April 2022, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony in response to the FERC trial staff’s recommendations of refunds for the accumulated deferred income taxes issues and proposed modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement for the executive incentive compensation issues. In June 2022 the FERC trial staff submitted revised answering testimony, in which it recommended additional refunds associated with the accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. Based on the testimony revisions, the FERC trial staff’s recommended refunds total $106.6 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC awarded interest. Also in June 2022, System Energy filed revised and supplemental cross-answering testimony to respond to the changes in the FERC trial staff’s testimony and oppose its revised recommendation. In May 2022 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed rebuttal testimony. The LPSC’s testimony asserts new claims, including that: (1) certain of the sale-leaseback transaction costs may have been imprudently incurred; (2) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with sale-leaseback transaction costs should have been included in rate base; (3) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with federal investment tax credits should have been excluded from rate base; (4) monthly net operating loss accumulated deferred income taxes should have been excluded from rate base; and (5) several categories of proposed rate changes, including executive incentive compensation, air travel, industry dues, and legal costs, also warrant historical refunds. The LPSC’s rebuttal testimony argues that refunds for the alleged tariff violations and other claims must be calculated by rerunning the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate; however, it includes estimates of refunds associated with some, but not all, of its claims, totaling $286 million without interest. The City Council’s rebuttal testimony also proposes a new, alternate theory and claim for relief regarding System Energy’s participation in the Entergy System money pool, under which it calculates estimated refunds of approximately $51.7 million. The APSC’s rebuttal testimony agrees with the LPSC’s direct testimony that retained earnings should be adjusted in a comprehensive refund calculation. The testimony quantifies the estimated impacts of three issues: (1) a $1.5 million reduction in the revenue requirement under the Unit Power Sales Agreement if System Energy’s borrowings from the money pool are included in short-term debt; (2) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement if System Energy’s allocated share of money pool earnings are credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement; and (3) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement for every $50 million of refunds ordered in a given year, without interest. In June 2022 a new procedural schedule was adopted, providing for additional rounds of testimony, for the hearing to begin in September 2022, and for the initial decision to be issued in February 2023. In July 2022, System Energy filed responsive rebuttal testimony responding to the new claims in the LPSC’s and the City Council’s rebuttal testimony. Also in July 2022 the LPSC filed supplemental rebuttal testimony responding to System Energy’s revised cross-answering testimony. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million in refunds, excluding interest which will be calculated after a FERC order is issued; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. System Energy Settlement with the MPSC In June 2022, System Energy, Entergy Mississippi, and additional named Entergy parties involved in thirteen docketed proceedings before the FERC filed with the FERC a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement. The settlement memorializes the Entergy parties’ agreement with the MPSC to globally resolve all actual and potential claims between the Entergy parties and the MPSC associated with those FERC proceedings and with System Energy’s past implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is a FERC-jurisdictional formula rate tariff for sales of energy and capacity from System Energy’s owned and leased share of Grand Gulf to Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Mississippi purchases the greatest single amount, nearly 40% of System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf, after its additional purchases from affiliates are considered. The settlement therefore limits System Energy’s overall refund exposure associated with the identified proceedings because they will be resolved completely as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC. The FERC proceedings that are resolved as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC include the Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints, the Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue, the Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint, and the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint, all of which are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K, and updated above. They also include the proceedings concerning System Energy’s return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the proceedings established to address System Energy’s October 2020 and December 2020 Federal Power Act section 205 filings to provide credits to customers related to the IRS’s decision as to the uncertain decommissioning tax position, also as all discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K. The settlement also resolves the MPSC’s involvement in the formal challenge filed by the retail regulators of System Energy’s customers in connection with the implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement annual formula rate protocols for the 2020 test year, which is discussed above. The settlement provides for a black-box refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi, which will be paid within 120 days of the settlement’s effective date (either the date of the FERC approval of the settlement without material modification, or the date that all settling parties agree to accept modifications or otherwise modify the settlement in response to a proposed material modification by the FERC). In addition, beginning with the July 2022 service month, the settlement provides for Entergy Mississippi’s bills from System Energy to be adjusted to reflect: an authorized rate of return on equity of 9.65%, a capital structure not to exceed 52% equity, a rate base reduction for the advance collection of sale-leaseback rental costs, and the exclusion of certain long-term incentive plan performance unit costs from rates. The settlement is expressly contingent upon the approval of the FERC and the MPSC. It was approved by the MPSC in June 2022. The remaining retail regulators of Entergy’s utility operating company purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (the APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council) may elect to join the settlement. If all of them elect to do so under the terms of the settlement, then the total black-box refund payment by System Energy would be $588.25 million, and the prospective rate adjustments would apply to all purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. If the FERC approves the settlement in accordance with its terms, then it will become binding upon the Entergy parties and the MPSC even if no additional retail regulators elect to join the settlement. The settlement will have no effect on the rights of non-settling parties to the identified FERC proceedings. System Energy previously recorded a provision and associated liability of $37 million for elements of the applicable litigation. In June 2022, System Energy recorded a regulatory charge of $551 million ($413 million net-of-tax), increasing the regulatory liability to $588 million, which consists of $235 million for the settlement with the MPSC and $353 million for potential future refunds to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. In August 2022 comments on the settlement were filed by the APSC, the LPSC, the City Council, the FERC trial staff, and a group that refers to itself as the Louisiana Stakeholders, which are three entities that intervened in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding but not any other proceedings that are part of the settlement. The APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council do not intend to join the settlement, but they do not oppose its approval as between the MPSC and the Entergy parties. The FERC trial staff concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. The Louisiana Stakeholders oppose the settlement, alleging it does not resolve the issues raised in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding. Reply comments will be filed later in August 2022. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana sought an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.942 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In May 2022 the securitization financing closed, resulting in the issuance of $3.194 billion principal amount of bonds by Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA), a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. The securitization was authorized pursuant to the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation Act, Part VIII of Chapter 9 of Title 45 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana legislature approved in 2021. The LCDA loaned the proceeds to the LURC. Pursuant to Act 293, the LURC contributed the net bond proceeds to a State legislatively authorized and LURC-sponsored trust, Restoration Law Trust I (the storm trust). Pursuant to Act 293, the net proceeds of the bonds were used by the storm trust to purchase 31,635,718.7221 Class A preferred, non-voting membership interest units (the preferred interests) issued by Entergy Finance Company, LLC, a majority-owned indirect subsidiary of Entergy. Entergy Finance Company is required to make annual distributions (dividends) commencing on December 15, 2022 on the preferred interests issued to the storm trust. These annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana and the LURC, as beneficiaries of the storm trust. Specifically, 1% of the annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to the LURC, for the benefit of customers, and 99% will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana, net of storm trust expenses. The preferred interests have a stated annual cumulative cash dividend rate of 7% and a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The terms of the preferred interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Finance Company is subject. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA. The bonds are secured by system restoration property, which is the right granted by law to the LURC to collect a system restoration charge from customers. The system restoration charge is adjusted at least semi-annually to ensure that it is sufficient to service the bonds. Entergy Louisiana collects the system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy Louisiana began collecting the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of June 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as a billing and collection agent for the LCDA and the LURC. In the remote possibility that the system restoration charge, as well as any funds in the excess subaccount and funds in the debt service reserve account, are insufficient to service the bonds resulting in a payment default, the storm trust is required to liquidate Entergy Finance Company preferred interests in an amount equal to what would be required to cure the default. The estimated value of this indirect guarantee is immaterial. From the proceeds from the issuance of the preferred membership interests, Entergy Finance Company distributed $1.4 billion to its parent, Entergy Holdings Company, LLC. Subsequently, Entergy Holdings Company liquidated, distributing the $1.4 billion it received from Entergy Finance Company to Entergy Louisiana as holder of 6,843,780.24 units of Class A, 4,126,940.15 units of Class B, and 2,935,152.69 units of Class C preferred membership interests. Entergy Louisiana had acquired these preferred membership interests with proceeds from previous securitizations of storm restoration costs. Entergy Finance Company loaned the remaining $1.7 billion from the preferred membership interests proceeds to Entergy which used the cash to redeem $650 million of 4.00% Series senior notes due July 2022 and indirectly contributed $1 billion to Entergy Louisiana as a capital contribution. Entergy Louisiana used the $1 billion capital contribution to fund its Hurricane Ida escrow account and subsequently withdrew the $1 billion from the escrow account. With a portion of the $1 billion withdrawn from the escrow account and the $1.4 billion from the Entergy Holdings Company liquidation, Entergy Louisiana deposited $290 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for future storms, used $1.2 billion to repay its unsecured term loan due June 2023, and used $435 million to redeem a portion of its 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023. As discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements herein, the securitization resulted in recognition of a reduction of income tax expense of approximately $290 million by Entergy Louisiana. Entergy’s recognition of reduced income tax expense was offset by other tax charges resulting in a net reduction of income tax expense of $283 million. I n recognition of obligations related to an LPSC ancillary order issued as part of the securitization regulatory proceeding, Entergy Louisiana recorded a $224 million ($165 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to share the benefits of the securitization with customers. As discussed in Note 12 to the financial statements herein, Entergy Louisiana consolidates the storm trust as a variable interest entity and the LURC’s 1% beneficial interest is shown as noncontrolling interest in the financial statements. In second quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana recorded a charge of $31.6 million in other income to reflect the LURC’s beneficial interest in the trust. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs of $57 million through December 2022, Entergy Louisiana is seeking an LPSC determination that $2.60 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As part of this filing, Entergy Louisiana also is seeking an LPSC determination that an additional $32 million in costs associated with the restoration of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta as well as Winter Storm Uri was prudently incurred. This amount is exclusive of the requested $3 million in carrying costs through December 2022. In total, Entergy Louisiana is requesting an LPSC determination that $2.64 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As discussed above, in March 2022 the LPSC approved financing of a $1 billion storm escrow account from which funds were withdrawn to finance costs associated with Hurricane Ida restoration. In June 2022, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. A procedural schedule has been established with a hearing in December 2022. Entergy New Orleans Hurricane Zeta As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In March 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $44 million from its funded storm reserves. In May 2021, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that its system restoration costs associated with Hurricane Zeta of approximately $36 million, which included $7 million in estimated costs, were reasonable and necessary to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. In May 2022 the City Council advisors issued a report recommending that the City Council find that Entergy New Orleans acted prudently in restoring service following Hurricane Zeta and approximately $33 million in storm restoration costs were prudently incurred and recoverable. Additionally, the advisors concluded that approximately $7 million of the $44 million withdrawn from its funded storm reserve was in excess of Entergy New Orleans’s costs and should be considered in Entergy New Orleans’s application for certification of costs related to Hurricane Ida, as discussed below. Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area, including Entergy’s electrical grid. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, including the loss of 100% of Entergy New Orleans’s load and damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, including the loss of connectivity to the eastern interconnection. In September 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $39 million from its funded storm reserves. In June 2022, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that storm restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida of approximately $170 million were reasonable, necessary, and prudently incurred to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and to repair Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. Carrying costs through December 2022 related to Hurricane Ida restoration costs were $9 million. Additionally, Entergy New Orleans is requesting approval that the $39 million withdrawal from its funded storm reserve in September 2021 and $7 million in excess storm reserve escrow withdrawals related to Hurricane Zeta and prior miscellaneous storms are properly applied to Hurricane Ida storm restoration costs, the application of which reduces the amount to be recovered from Entergy New Orleans customers by $46 million. The City Council has not yet set a procedural schedule regarding the requested relief, though Entergy New Orleans requested resolution by the end of first quarter 2023. Entergy New Orleans intends to file with the City Council an application proposing a financing method for recovery of costs deemed eligible for recovery. Entergy Texas Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta caused extensive damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri also caused damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In July 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application for a financing order to approve the securitization of certain system restoration costs, which were approved by the PUCT as eligible for securitization in December 2021. In November 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement supporting the issuance of a financing order consistent with Entergy Texas’s application and with minor adjustments to certain upfront and ongoing costs to be incurred to facilitate the issuance and serving of system restoration bonds. In January 2022 the PUCT issued a financing order consistent with the unopposed settlement. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Texas reclassified $153 million from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In April 2022, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $290.85 million of senior secured system restoration bonds (securitization bonds). With the proceeds, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a system restoration charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. Entergy Texas began cost recovery through the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of May 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the April 2022 issuance of the securitization bonds.
Entergy New Orleans [Member] |
Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities 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 Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovered balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2021, Entergy Louisiana incurred extraordinary fuel costs associated with the February 2021 winter storms. To mitigate the effect of these costs on customer bills, in March 2021, Entergy Louisiana requested and the LPSC approved the deferral and recovery of $166 million in incremental fuel costs over five months beginning in April 2021. In April 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause charges in February 2021 that did not recommend any financial disallowances, but included several prospective recommendations. Responsive testimony was filed by one intervenor and the parties agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. In May 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment charges in February 2021 that did not propose any financial disallowances. The LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana have agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. To mitigate high electric bills, primarily driven by high summer usage and elevated gas prices, Entergy Louisiana has deferred approximately $135 million of fuel expense incurred in April, May, and June 2022 (as reflected on June, July, and August 2022 bills). Deferrals from April and May 2022 are expected to be recovered in the last four months of 2022 and June 2022 deferrals will be included in the over/under calculation of the fuel adjustment clause. Entergy Mississippi See “Complaints Against System Energy - System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of the settlement agreement filed with the FERC in June 2022. The settlement, which is contingent upon FERC approval, provides for a refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi. In July 2022 the MPSC directed the disbursement of settlement proceeds, ordering Entergy Mississippi to provide a one-time $80 bill credit to each of its approximately 460,000 retail customers to be effective during the September 2022 billing cycle, and to apply the remaining proceeds to Entergy Mississippi’s under-recovered deferred fuel balance. Entergy Texas In May 2022, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to implement an interim fuel surcharge to collect the cumulative under-recovery of approximately $51.7 million, including interest, of fuel and purchased power costs incurred from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. The under-recovery balance is primarily attributable to the impacts of Winter Storm Uri, including historically high natural gas prices, partially offset by settlements received by Entergy Texas from MISO related to Hurricane Laura. Entergy Texas proposed that the interim fuel surcharge be assessed over a period of six months beginning with the first billing cycle after the PUCT issues a final order, but no later than the first billing cycle of September 2022. Also in May 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed settlement resolving all issues in the proceeding. In addition, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a motion to admit evidence, to approve interim rates as requested in the initial application, and to remand the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the unopposed settlement. In August 2022 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting Entergy Texas’s motion, approving interim rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022, and remanding the case to the PUCT for final approval. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2022 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2023 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2023 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2021. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2023 projected year is 7.40% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $104.8 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 historical year was 8.38% resulting in a $15.2 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2023 projected year and 2021 historical year netting adjustment is $119.9 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase is limited to $79.3 million. COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $36.6 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) Retail Rates - Electric 2021 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2021 calendar year operations. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 8.33%, with a base formula rate plan revenue increase of $65.3 million. Other increases in formula rate plan revenue driven by reductions in Tax Cut and Jobs Act credits and additions to transmission and distribution plant in service reflected through the transmission recovery mechanism and distribution recovery mechanism are partly offset by an increase in net MISO revenues, leading to a net increase in formula rate plan revenue of $152.9 million. The effects of the changes to total formula rate plan revenue are different for each legacy company, primarily due to differences in the legacy companies’ capacity cost changes, including the effect of true-ups. Legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $86 million and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $66.9 million. Subject to refund and LPSC review, the resulting changes will be effective for bills rendered during the first billing cycle of September 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022. In June 2022, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed the 2022 test year filing that resulted in a total rate increase of $48.6 million. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2021 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 5.99% in calendar year 2021, which is below the look-back bandwidth, resulting in a $34.3 million increase in the formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2023. In July 2022 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective in August 2022. In July 2022 the MPSC directed Entergy Mississippi to flow $14.1 million of the power management rider over-recovery balance to customers beginning in August 2022 through December 2022 to mitigate the bill impact of the increase in formula rate plan revenues. Sunflower Solar As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order approving certification of the Sunflower Solar facility and its recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, subject to certain conditions. In July 2022, pursuant to the MPSC’s April 2020 order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a compliance filing to the MPSC with updated calculations of the impact of the Sunflower Solar facility on rate base and revenue requirement for the Sunflower Solar facility and benefits of the tax equity partnership. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s purchase of the Sunflower Solar facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $13.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Mississippi received approval to recover this regulatory asset through its formula rate plan rider over a three-year period beginning August 2022. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report, subsequently updated in a July 2022 filing, produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $42.1 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $34.1 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.3 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. In July 2022 the City Council’s advisors issued a report seeking a reduction to Entergy New Orleans’s proposed increase of approximately $17.1 million in total for electric and gas revenues. The parties have a 25-day period to attempt to reach an agreement on the final amount to increase revenues, with implementation of resulting rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council will set a procedural schedule that will extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 formula rate plan filing, Entergy New Orleans requested recovery of this regulatory asset over a five-year period beginning September 2022. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Retail Rates 2022 Base Rate Case In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed a base rate case with the PUCT seeking an increase in base rates of approximately $131.4 million. The base rate case was based on a 12-month test year ending December 31, 2021. Key drivers of the requested increase are changes in depreciation rates as the result of a depreciation study and an increase in the return on equity. In addition, Entergy Texas included capital additions placed into service for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021, including those additions currently reflected in the distribution and transmission cost recovery factor riders and the generation cost recovery rider, all of which would be reset to zero as a result of this proceeding. In July 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Also in July 2022, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings approved a procedural schedule with a hearing on the merits in December 2022. Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $66.1 million annually, or $15.1 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Energy Texas’s currently effective TCRF rider based on its capital invested in transmission between September 1, 2020 and July 31, 2021 and changes in approved transmission charges. In January 2022 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In February 2022 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested TCRF revenue requirement with interim rates effective March 2022. In February 2022 the ALJ granted the motion for interim rates, admitted evidence, and remanded the case to the PUCT for consideration of a final order at a future open meeting. In June 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. Concurrently with filing of the unanimous settlement agreement, Entergy Texas submitted an agreed motion to admit evidence and remand the case to the PUCT for review and consideration of the settlement agreement, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 base rate case filing, Entergy Texas requested recovery of its regulatory asset over a three-year period beginning December 2022. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. In June 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion asserting that it is entitled to summary judgment because Entergy Arkansas’s position that the APSC’s order is pre-empted by the filed rate doctrine and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause is premised on facts that are not subject to genuine dispute. In July 2022, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc., an industrial customer association, filed a motion to intervene and to hold Entergy Arkansas’s motion for summary judgment in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion to intervene. Entergy Arkansas filed a consolidated opposition to both motions. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. See “System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement related to the pending proceedings before the FERC. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through June 30, 2022 is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $139 million through June 30, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that: (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In April 2022, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony in response to the FERC trial staff’s recommendations of refunds for the accumulated deferred income taxes issues and proposed modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement for the executive incentive compensation issues. In June 2022 the FERC trial staff submitted revised answering testimony, in which it recommended additional refunds associated with the accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. Based on the testimony revisions, the FERC trial staff’s recommended refunds total $106.6 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC awarded interest. Also in June 2022, System Energy filed revised and supplemental cross-answering testimony to respond to the changes in the FERC trial staff’s testimony and oppose its revised recommendation. In May 2022 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed rebuttal testimony. The LPSC’s testimony asserts new claims, including that: (1) certain of the sale-leaseback transaction costs may have been imprudently incurred; (2) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with sale-leaseback transaction costs should have been included in rate base; (3) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with federal investment tax credits should have been excluded from rate base; (4) monthly net operating loss accumulated deferred income taxes should have been excluded from rate base; and (5) several categories of proposed rate changes, including executive incentive compensation, air travel, industry dues, and legal costs, also warrant historical refunds. The LPSC’s rebuttal testimony argues that refunds for the alleged tariff violations and other claims must be calculated by rerunning the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate; however, it includes estimates of refunds associated with some, but not all, of its claims, totaling $286 million without interest. The City Council’s rebuttal testimony also proposes a new, alternate theory and claim for relief regarding System Energy’s participation in the Entergy System money pool, under which it calculates estimated refunds of approximately $51.7 million. The APSC’s rebuttal testimony agrees with the LPSC’s direct testimony that retained earnings should be adjusted in a comprehensive refund calculation. The testimony quantifies the estimated impacts of three issues: (1) a $1.5 million reduction in the revenue requirement under the Unit Power Sales Agreement if System Energy’s borrowings from the money pool are included in short-term debt; (2) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement if System Energy’s allocated share of money pool earnings are credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement; and (3) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement for every $50 million of refunds ordered in a given year, without interest. In June 2022 a new procedural schedule was adopted, providing for additional rounds of testimony, for the hearing to begin in September 2022, and for the initial decision to be issued in February 2023. In July 2022, System Energy filed responsive rebuttal testimony responding to the new claims in the LPSC’s and the City Council’s rebuttal testimony. Also in July 2022 the LPSC filed supplemental rebuttal testimony responding to System Energy’s revised cross-answering testimony. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million in refunds, excluding interest which will be calculated after a FERC order is issued; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. System Energy Settlement with the MPSC In June 2022, System Energy, Entergy Mississippi, and additional named Entergy parties involved in thirteen docketed proceedings before the FERC filed with the FERC a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement. The settlement memorializes the Entergy parties’ agreement with the MPSC to globally resolve all actual and potential claims between the Entergy parties and the MPSC associated with those FERC proceedings and with System Energy’s past implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is a FERC-jurisdictional formula rate tariff for sales of energy and capacity from System Energy’s owned and leased share of Grand Gulf to Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Mississippi purchases the greatest single amount, nearly 40% of System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf, after its additional purchases from affiliates are considered. The settlement therefore limits System Energy’s overall refund exposure associated with the identified proceedings because they will be resolved completely as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC. The FERC proceedings that are resolved as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC include the Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints, the Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue, the Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint, and the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint, all of which are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K, and updated above. They also include the proceedings concerning System Energy’s return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the proceedings established to address System Energy’s October 2020 and December 2020 Federal Power Act section 205 filings to provide credits to customers related to the IRS’s decision as to the uncertain decommissioning tax position, also as all discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K. The settlement also resolves the MPSC’s involvement in the formal challenge filed by the retail regulators of System Energy’s customers in connection with the implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement annual formula rate protocols for the 2020 test year, which is discussed above. The settlement provides for a black-box refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi, which will be paid within 120 days of the settlement’s effective date (either the date of the FERC approval of the settlement without material modification, or the date that all settling parties agree to accept modifications or otherwise modify the settlement in response to a proposed material modification by the FERC). In addition, beginning with the July 2022 service month, the settlement provides for Entergy Mississippi’s bills from System Energy to be adjusted to reflect: an authorized rate of return on equity of 9.65%, a capital structure not to exceed 52% equity, a rate base reduction for the advance collection of sale-leaseback rental costs, and the exclusion of certain long-term incentive plan performance unit costs from rates. The settlement is expressly contingent upon the approval of the FERC and the MPSC. It was approved by the MPSC in June 2022. The remaining retail regulators of Entergy’s utility operating company purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (the APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council) may elect to join the settlement. If all of them elect to do so under the terms of the settlement, then the total black-box refund payment by System Energy would be $588.25 million, and the prospective rate adjustments would apply to all purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. If the FERC approves the settlement in accordance with its terms, then it will become binding upon the Entergy parties and the MPSC even if no additional retail regulators elect to join the settlement. The settlement will have no effect on the rights of non-settling parties to the identified FERC proceedings. System Energy previously recorded a provision and associated liability of $37 million for elements of the applicable litigation. In June 2022, System Energy recorded a regulatory charge of $551 million ($413 million net-of-tax), increasing the regulatory liability to $588 million, which consists of $235 million for the settlement with the MPSC and $353 million for potential future refunds to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. In August 2022 comments on the settlement were filed by the APSC, the LPSC, the City Council, the FERC trial staff, and a group that refers to itself as the Louisiana Stakeholders, which are three entities that intervened in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding but not any other proceedings that are part of the settlement. The APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council do not intend to join the settlement, but they do not oppose its approval as between the MPSC and the Entergy parties. The FERC trial staff concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. The Louisiana Stakeholders oppose the settlement, alleging it does not resolve the issues raised in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding. Reply comments will be filed later in August 2022. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana sought an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.942 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In May 2022 the securitization financing closed, resulting in the issuance of $3.194 billion principal amount of bonds by Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA), a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. The securitization was authorized pursuant to the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation Act, Part VIII of Chapter 9 of Title 45 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana legislature approved in 2021. The LCDA loaned the proceeds to the LURC. Pursuant to Act 293, the LURC contributed the net bond proceeds to a State legislatively authorized and LURC-sponsored trust, Restoration Law Trust I (the storm trust). Pursuant to Act 293, the net proceeds of the bonds were used by the storm trust to purchase 31,635,718.7221 Class A preferred, non-voting membership interest units (the preferred interests) issued by Entergy Finance Company, LLC, a majority-owned indirect subsidiary of Entergy. Entergy Finance Company is required to make annual distributions (dividends) commencing on December 15, 2022 on the preferred interests issued to the storm trust. These annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana and the LURC, as beneficiaries of the storm trust. Specifically, 1% of the annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to the LURC, for the benefit of customers, and 99% will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana, net of storm trust expenses. The preferred interests have a stated annual cumulative cash dividend rate of 7% and a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The terms of the preferred interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Finance Company is subject. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA. The bonds are secured by system restoration property, which is the right granted by law to the LURC to collect a system restoration charge from customers. The system restoration charge is adjusted at least semi-annually to ensure that it is sufficient to service the bonds. Entergy Louisiana collects the system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy Louisiana began collecting the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of June 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as a billing and collection agent for the LCDA and the LURC. In the remote possibility that the system restoration charge, as well as any funds in the excess subaccount and funds in the debt service reserve account, are insufficient to service the bonds resulting in a payment default, the storm trust is required to liquidate Entergy Finance Company preferred interests in an amount equal to what would be required to cure the default. The estimated value of this indirect guarantee is immaterial. From the proceeds from the issuance of the preferred membership interests, Entergy Finance Company distributed $1.4 billion to its parent, Entergy Holdings Company, LLC. Subsequently, Entergy Holdings Company liquidated, distributing the $1.4 billion it received from Entergy Finance Company to Entergy Louisiana as holder of 6,843,780.24 units of Class A, 4,126,940.15 units of Class B, and 2,935,152.69 units of Class C preferred membership interests. Entergy Louisiana had acquired these preferred membership interests with proceeds from previous securitizations of storm restoration costs. Entergy Finance Company loaned the remaining $1.7 billion from the preferred membership interests proceeds to Entergy which used the cash to redeem $650 million of 4.00% Series senior notes due July 2022 and indirectly contributed $1 billion to Entergy Louisiana as a capital contribution. Entergy Louisiana used the $1 billion capital contribution to fund its Hurricane Ida escrow account and subsequently withdrew the $1 billion from the escrow account. With a portion of the $1 billion withdrawn from the escrow account and the $1.4 billion from the Entergy Holdings Company liquidation, Entergy Louisiana deposited $290 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for future storms, used $1.2 billion to repay its unsecured term loan due June 2023, and used $435 million to redeem a portion of its 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023. As discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements herein, the securitization resulted in recognition of a reduction of income tax expense of approximately $290 million by Entergy Louisiana. Entergy’s recognition of reduced income tax expense was offset by other tax charges resulting in a net reduction of income tax expense of $283 million. I n recognition of obligations related to an LPSC ancillary order issued as part of the securitization regulatory proceeding, Entergy Louisiana recorded a $224 million ($165 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to share the benefits of the securitization with customers. As discussed in Note 12 to the financial statements herein, Entergy Louisiana consolidates the storm trust as a variable interest entity and the LURC’s 1% beneficial interest is shown as noncontrolling interest in the financial statements. In second quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana recorded a charge of $31.6 million in other income to reflect the LURC’s beneficial interest in the trust. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs of $57 million through December 2022, Entergy Louisiana is seeking an LPSC determination that $2.60 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As part of this filing, Entergy Louisiana also is seeking an LPSC determination that an additional $32 million in costs associated with the restoration of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta as well as Winter Storm Uri was prudently incurred. This amount is exclusive of the requested $3 million in carrying costs through December 2022. In total, Entergy Louisiana is requesting an LPSC determination that $2.64 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As discussed above, in March 2022 the LPSC approved financing of a $1 billion storm escrow account from which funds were withdrawn to finance costs associated with Hurricane Ida restoration. In June 2022, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. A procedural schedule has been established with a hearing in December 2022. Entergy New Orleans Hurricane Zeta As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In March 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $44 million from its funded storm reserves. In May 2021, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that its system restoration costs associated with Hurricane Zeta of approximately $36 million, which included $7 million in estimated costs, were reasonable and necessary to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. In May 2022 the City Council advisors issued a report recommending that the City Council find that Entergy New Orleans acted prudently in restoring service following Hurricane Zeta and approximately $33 million in storm restoration costs were prudently incurred and recoverable. Additionally, the advisors concluded that approximately $7 million of the $44 million withdrawn from its funded storm reserve was in excess of Entergy New Orleans’s costs and should be considered in Entergy New Orleans’s application for certification of costs related to Hurricane Ida, as discussed below. Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area, including Entergy’s electrical grid. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, including the loss of 100% of Entergy New Orleans’s load and damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, including the loss of connectivity to the eastern interconnection. In September 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $39 million from its funded storm reserves. In June 2022, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that storm restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida of approximately $170 million were reasonable, necessary, and prudently incurred to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and to repair Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. Carrying costs through December 2022 related to Hurricane Ida restoration costs were $9 million. Additionally, Entergy New Orleans is requesting approval that the $39 million withdrawal from its funded storm reserve in September 2021 and $7 million in excess storm reserve escrow withdrawals related to Hurricane Zeta and prior miscellaneous storms are properly applied to Hurricane Ida storm restoration costs, the application of which reduces the amount to be recovered from Entergy New Orleans customers by $46 million. The City Council has not yet set a procedural schedule regarding the requested relief, though Entergy New Orleans requested resolution by the end of first quarter 2023. Entergy New Orleans intends to file with the City Council an application proposing a financing method for recovery of costs deemed eligible for recovery. Entergy Texas Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta caused extensive damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri also caused damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In July 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application for a financing order to approve the securitization of certain system restoration costs, which were approved by the PUCT as eligible for securitization in December 2021. In November 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement supporting the issuance of a financing order consistent with Entergy Texas’s application and with minor adjustments to certain upfront and ongoing costs to be incurred to facilitate the issuance and serving of system restoration bonds. In January 2022 the PUCT issued a financing order consistent with the unopposed settlement. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Texas reclassified $153 million from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In April 2022, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $290.85 million of senior secured system restoration bonds (securitization bonds). With the proceeds, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a system restoration charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. Entergy Texas began cost recovery through the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of May 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the April 2022 issuance of the securitization bonds.
Entergy Texas [Member] |
Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities 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 Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovered balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2021, Entergy Louisiana incurred extraordinary fuel costs associated with the February 2021 winter storms. To mitigate the effect of these costs on customer bills, in March 2021, Entergy Louisiana requested and the LPSC approved the deferral and recovery of $166 million in incremental fuel costs over five months beginning in April 2021. In April 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause charges in February 2021 that did not recommend any financial disallowances, but included several prospective recommendations. Responsive testimony was filed by one intervenor and the parties agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. In May 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment charges in February 2021 that did not propose any financial disallowances. The LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana have agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. To mitigate high electric bills, primarily driven by high summer usage and elevated gas prices, Entergy Louisiana has deferred approximately $135 million of fuel expense incurred in April, May, and June 2022 (as reflected on June, July, and August 2022 bills). Deferrals from April and May 2022 are expected to be recovered in the last four months of 2022 and June 2022 deferrals will be included in the over/under calculation of the fuel adjustment clause. Entergy Mississippi See “Complaints Against System Energy - System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of the settlement agreement filed with the FERC in June 2022. The settlement, which is contingent upon FERC approval, provides for a refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi. In July 2022 the MPSC directed the disbursement of settlement proceeds, ordering Entergy Mississippi to provide a one-time $80 bill credit to each of its approximately 460,000 retail customers to be effective during the September 2022 billing cycle, and to apply the remaining proceeds to Entergy Mississippi’s under-recovered deferred fuel balance. Entergy Texas In May 2022, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to implement an interim fuel surcharge to collect the cumulative under-recovery of approximately $51.7 million, including interest, of fuel and purchased power costs incurred from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. The under-recovery balance is primarily attributable to the impacts of Winter Storm Uri, including historically high natural gas prices, partially offset by settlements received by Entergy Texas from MISO related to Hurricane Laura. Entergy Texas proposed that the interim fuel surcharge be assessed over a period of six months beginning with the first billing cycle after the PUCT issues a final order, but no later than the first billing cycle of September 2022. Also in May 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed settlement resolving all issues in the proceeding. In addition, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a motion to admit evidence, to approve interim rates as requested in the initial application, and to remand the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the unopposed settlement. In August 2022 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting Entergy Texas’s motion, approving interim rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022, and remanding the case to the PUCT for final approval. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2022 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2023 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2023 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2021. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2023 projected year is 7.40% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $104.8 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 historical year was 8.38% resulting in a $15.2 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2023 projected year and 2021 historical year netting adjustment is $119.9 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase is limited to $79.3 million. COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $36.6 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) Retail Rates - Electric 2021 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2021 calendar year operations. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 8.33%, with a base formula rate plan revenue increase of $65.3 million. Other increases in formula rate plan revenue driven by reductions in Tax Cut and Jobs Act credits and additions to transmission and distribution plant in service reflected through the transmission recovery mechanism and distribution recovery mechanism are partly offset by an increase in net MISO revenues, leading to a net increase in formula rate plan revenue of $152.9 million. The effects of the changes to total formula rate plan revenue are different for each legacy company, primarily due to differences in the legacy companies’ capacity cost changes, including the effect of true-ups. Legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $86 million and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $66.9 million. Subject to refund and LPSC review, the resulting changes will be effective for bills rendered during the first billing cycle of September 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022. In June 2022, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed the 2022 test year filing that resulted in a total rate increase of $48.6 million. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2021 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 5.99% in calendar year 2021, which is below the look-back bandwidth, resulting in a $34.3 million increase in the formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2023. In July 2022 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective in August 2022. In July 2022 the MPSC directed Entergy Mississippi to flow $14.1 million of the power management rider over-recovery balance to customers beginning in August 2022 through December 2022 to mitigate the bill impact of the increase in formula rate plan revenues. Sunflower Solar As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order approving certification of the Sunflower Solar facility and its recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, subject to certain conditions. In July 2022, pursuant to the MPSC’s April 2020 order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a compliance filing to the MPSC with updated calculations of the impact of the Sunflower Solar facility on rate base and revenue requirement for the Sunflower Solar facility and benefits of the tax equity partnership. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s purchase of the Sunflower Solar facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $13.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Mississippi received approval to recover this regulatory asset through its formula rate plan rider over a three-year period beginning August 2022. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report, subsequently updated in a July 2022 filing, produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $42.1 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $34.1 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.3 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. In July 2022 the City Council’s advisors issued a report seeking a reduction to Entergy New Orleans’s proposed increase of approximately $17.1 million in total for electric and gas revenues. The parties have a 25-day period to attempt to reach an agreement on the final amount to increase revenues, with implementation of resulting rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council will set a procedural schedule that will extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 formula rate plan filing, Entergy New Orleans requested recovery of this regulatory asset over a five-year period beginning September 2022. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Retail Rates 2022 Base Rate Case In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed a base rate case with the PUCT seeking an increase in base rates of approximately $131.4 million. The base rate case was based on a 12-month test year ending December 31, 2021. Key drivers of the requested increase are changes in depreciation rates as the result of a depreciation study and an increase in the return on equity. In addition, Entergy Texas included capital additions placed into service for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021, including those additions currently reflected in the distribution and transmission cost recovery factor riders and the generation cost recovery rider, all of which would be reset to zero as a result of this proceeding. In July 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Also in July 2022, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings approved a procedural schedule with a hearing on the merits in December 2022. Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $66.1 million annually, or $15.1 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Energy Texas’s currently effective TCRF rider based on its capital invested in transmission between September 1, 2020 and July 31, 2021 and changes in approved transmission charges. In January 2022 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In February 2022 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested TCRF revenue requirement with interim rates effective March 2022. In February 2022 the ALJ granted the motion for interim rates, admitted evidence, and remanded the case to the PUCT for consideration of a final order at a future open meeting. In June 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. Concurrently with filing of the unanimous settlement agreement, Entergy Texas submitted an agreed motion to admit evidence and remand the case to the PUCT for review and consideration of the settlement agreement, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 base rate case filing, Entergy Texas requested recovery of its regulatory asset over a three-year period beginning December 2022. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. In June 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion asserting that it is entitled to summary judgment because Entergy Arkansas’s position that the APSC’s order is pre-empted by the filed rate doctrine and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause is premised on facts that are not subject to genuine dispute. In July 2022, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc., an industrial customer association, filed a motion to intervene and to hold Entergy Arkansas’s motion for summary judgment in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion to intervene. Entergy Arkansas filed a consolidated opposition to both motions. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. See “System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement related to the pending proceedings before the FERC. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through June 30, 2022 is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $139 million through June 30, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that: (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In April 2022, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony in response to the FERC trial staff’s recommendations of refunds for the accumulated deferred income taxes issues and proposed modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement for the executive incentive compensation issues. In June 2022 the FERC trial staff submitted revised answering testimony, in which it recommended additional refunds associated with the accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. Based on the testimony revisions, the FERC trial staff’s recommended refunds total $106.6 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC awarded interest. Also in June 2022, System Energy filed revised and supplemental cross-answering testimony to respond to the changes in the FERC trial staff’s testimony and oppose its revised recommendation. In May 2022 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed rebuttal testimony. The LPSC’s testimony asserts new claims, including that: (1) certain of the sale-leaseback transaction costs may have been imprudently incurred; (2) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with sale-leaseback transaction costs should have been included in rate base; (3) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with federal investment tax credits should have been excluded from rate base; (4) monthly net operating loss accumulated deferred income taxes should have been excluded from rate base; and (5) several categories of proposed rate changes, including executive incentive compensation, air travel, industry dues, and legal costs, also warrant historical refunds. The LPSC’s rebuttal testimony argues that refunds for the alleged tariff violations and other claims must be calculated by rerunning the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate; however, it includes estimates of refunds associated with some, but not all, of its claims, totaling $286 million without interest. The City Council’s rebuttal testimony also proposes a new, alternate theory and claim for relief regarding System Energy’s participation in the Entergy System money pool, under which it calculates estimated refunds of approximately $51.7 million. The APSC’s rebuttal testimony agrees with the LPSC’s direct testimony that retained earnings should be adjusted in a comprehensive refund calculation. The testimony quantifies the estimated impacts of three issues: (1) a $1.5 million reduction in the revenue requirement under the Unit Power Sales Agreement if System Energy’s borrowings from the money pool are included in short-term debt; (2) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement if System Energy’s allocated share of money pool earnings are credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement; and (3) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement for every $50 million of refunds ordered in a given year, without interest. In June 2022 a new procedural schedule was adopted, providing for additional rounds of testimony, for the hearing to begin in September 2022, and for the initial decision to be issued in February 2023. In July 2022, System Energy filed responsive rebuttal testimony responding to the new claims in the LPSC’s and the City Council’s rebuttal testimony. Also in July 2022 the LPSC filed supplemental rebuttal testimony responding to System Energy’s revised cross-answering testimony. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million in refunds, excluding interest which will be calculated after a FERC order is issued; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. System Energy Settlement with the MPSC In June 2022, System Energy, Entergy Mississippi, and additional named Entergy parties involved in thirteen docketed proceedings before the FERC filed with the FERC a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement. The settlement memorializes the Entergy parties’ agreement with the MPSC to globally resolve all actual and potential claims between the Entergy parties and the MPSC associated with those FERC proceedings and with System Energy’s past implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is a FERC-jurisdictional formula rate tariff for sales of energy and capacity from System Energy’s owned and leased share of Grand Gulf to Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Mississippi purchases the greatest single amount, nearly 40% of System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf, after its additional purchases from affiliates are considered. The settlement therefore limits System Energy’s overall refund exposure associated with the identified proceedings because they will be resolved completely as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC. The FERC proceedings that are resolved as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC include the Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints, the Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue, the Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint, and the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint, all of which are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K, and updated above. They also include the proceedings concerning System Energy’s return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the proceedings established to address System Energy’s October 2020 and December 2020 Federal Power Act section 205 filings to provide credits to customers related to the IRS’s decision as to the uncertain decommissioning tax position, also as all discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K. The settlement also resolves the MPSC’s involvement in the formal challenge filed by the retail regulators of System Energy’s customers in connection with the implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement annual formula rate protocols for the 2020 test year, which is discussed above. The settlement provides for a black-box refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi, which will be paid within 120 days of the settlement’s effective date (either the date of the FERC approval of the settlement without material modification, or the date that all settling parties agree to accept modifications or otherwise modify the settlement in response to a proposed material modification by the FERC). In addition, beginning with the July 2022 service month, the settlement provides for Entergy Mississippi’s bills from System Energy to be adjusted to reflect: an authorized rate of return on equity of 9.65%, a capital structure not to exceed 52% equity, a rate base reduction for the advance collection of sale-leaseback rental costs, and the exclusion of certain long-term incentive plan performance unit costs from rates. The settlement is expressly contingent upon the approval of the FERC and the MPSC. It was approved by the MPSC in June 2022. The remaining retail regulators of Entergy’s utility operating company purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (the APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council) may elect to join the settlement. If all of them elect to do so under the terms of the settlement, then the total black-box refund payment by System Energy would be $588.25 million, and the prospective rate adjustments would apply to all purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. If the FERC approves the settlement in accordance with its terms, then it will become binding upon the Entergy parties and the MPSC even if no additional retail regulators elect to join the settlement. The settlement will have no effect on the rights of non-settling parties to the identified FERC proceedings. System Energy previously recorded a provision and associated liability of $37 million for elements of the applicable litigation. In June 2022, System Energy recorded a regulatory charge of $551 million ($413 million net-of-tax), increasing the regulatory liability to $588 million, which consists of $235 million for the settlement with the MPSC and $353 million for potential future refunds to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. In August 2022 comments on the settlement were filed by the APSC, the LPSC, the City Council, the FERC trial staff, and a group that refers to itself as the Louisiana Stakeholders, which are three entities that intervened in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding but not any other proceedings that are part of the settlement. The APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council do not intend to join the settlement, but they do not oppose its approval as between the MPSC and the Entergy parties. The FERC trial staff concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. The Louisiana Stakeholders oppose the settlement, alleging it does not resolve the issues raised in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding. Reply comments will be filed later in August 2022. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana sought an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.942 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In May 2022 the securitization financing closed, resulting in the issuance of $3.194 billion principal amount of bonds by Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA), a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. The securitization was authorized pursuant to the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation Act, Part VIII of Chapter 9 of Title 45 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana legislature approved in 2021. The LCDA loaned the proceeds to the LURC. Pursuant to Act 293, the LURC contributed the net bond proceeds to a State legislatively authorized and LURC-sponsored trust, Restoration Law Trust I (the storm trust). Pursuant to Act 293, the net proceeds of the bonds were used by the storm trust to purchase 31,635,718.7221 Class A preferred, non-voting membership interest units (the preferred interests) issued by Entergy Finance Company, LLC, a majority-owned indirect subsidiary of Entergy. Entergy Finance Company is required to make annual distributions (dividends) commencing on December 15, 2022 on the preferred interests issued to the storm trust. These annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana and the LURC, as beneficiaries of the storm trust. Specifically, 1% of the annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to the LURC, for the benefit of customers, and 99% will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana, net of storm trust expenses. The preferred interests have a stated annual cumulative cash dividend rate of 7% and a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The terms of the preferred interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Finance Company is subject. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA. The bonds are secured by system restoration property, which is the right granted by law to the LURC to collect a system restoration charge from customers. The system restoration charge is adjusted at least semi-annually to ensure that it is sufficient to service the bonds. Entergy Louisiana collects the system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy Louisiana began collecting the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of June 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as a billing and collection agent for the LCDA and the LURC. In the remote possibility that the system restoration charge, as well as any funds in the excess subaccount and funds in the debt service reserve account, are insufficient to service the bonds resulting in a payment default, the storm trust is required to liquidate Entergy Finance Company preferred interests in an amount equal to what would be required to cure the default. The estimated value of this indirect guarantee is immaterial. From the proceeds from the issuance of the preferred membership interests, Entergy Finance Company distributed $1.4 billion to its parent, Entergy Holdings Company, LLC. Subsequently, Entergy Holdings Company liquidated, distributing the $1.4 billion it received from Entergy Finance Company to Entergy Louisiana as holder of 6,843,780.24 units of Class A, 4,126,940.15 units of Class B, and 2,935,152.69 units of Class C preferred membership interests. Entergy Louisiana had acquired these preferred membership interests with proceeds from previous securitizations of storm restoration costs. Entergy Finance Company loaned the remaining $1.7 billion from the preferred membership interests proceeds to Entergy which used the cash to redeem $650 million of 4.00% Series senior notes due July 2022 and indirectly contributed $1 billion to Entergy Louisiana as a capital contribution. Entergy Louisiana used the $1 billion capital contribution to fund its Hurricane Ida escrow account and subsequently withdrew the $1 billion from the escrow account. With a portion of the $1 billion withdrawn from the escrow account and the $1.4 billion from the Entergy Holdings Company liquidation, Entergy Louisiana deposited $290 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for future storms, used $1.2 billion to repay its unsecured term loan due June 2023, and used $435 million to redeem a portion of its 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023. As discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements herein, the securitization resulted in recognition of a reduction of income tax expense of approximately $290 million by Entergy Louisiana. Entergy’s recognition of reduced income tax expense was offset by other tax charges resulting in a net reduction of income tax expense of $283 million. I n recognition of obligations related to an LPSC ancillary order issued as part of the securitization regulatory proceeding, Entergy Louisiana recorded a $224 million ($165 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to share the benefits of the securitization with customers. As discussed in Note 12 to the financial statements herein, Entergy Louisiana consolidates the storm trust as a variable interest entity and the LURC’s 1% beneficial interest is shown as noncontrolling interest in the financial statements. In second quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana recorded a charge of $31.6 million in other income to reflect the LURC’s beneficial interest in the trust. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs of $57 million through December 2022, Entergy Louisiana is seeking an LPSC determination that $2.60 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As part of this filing, Entergy Louisiana also is seeking an LPSC determination that an additional $32 million in costs associated with the restoration of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta as well as Winter Storm Uri was prudently incurred. This amount is exclusive of the requested $3 million in carrying costs through December 2022. In total, Entergy Louisiana is requesting an LPSC determination that $2.64 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As discussed above, in March 2022 the LPSC approved financing of a $1 billion storm escrow account from which funds were withdrawn to finance costs associated with Hurricane Ida restoration. In June 2022, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. A procedural schedule has been established with a hearing in December 2022. Entergy New Orleans Hurricane Zeta As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In March 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $44 million from its funded storm reserves. In May 2021, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that its system restoration costs associated with Hurricane Zeta of approximately $36 million, which included $7 million in estimated costs, were reasonable and necessary to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. In May 2022 the City Council advisors issued a report recommending that the City Council find that Entergy New Orleans acted prudently in restoring service following Hurricane Zeta and approximately $33 million in storm restoration costs were prudently incurred and recoverable. Additionally, the advisors concluded that approximately $7 million of the $44 million withdrawn from its funded storm reserve was in excess of Entergy New Orleans’s costs and should be considered in Entergy New Orleans’s application for certification of costs related to Hurricane Ida, as discussed below. Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area, including Entergy’s electrical grid. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, including the loss of 100% of Entergy New Orleans’s load and damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, including the loss of connectivity to the eastern interconnection. In September 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $39 million from its funded storm reserves. In June 2022, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that storm restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida of approximately $170 million were reasonable, necessary, and prudently incurred to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and to repair Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. Carrying costs through December 2022 related to Hurricane Ida restoration costs were $9 million. Additionally, Entergy New Orleans is requesting approval that the $39 million withdrawal from its funded storm reserve in September 2021 and $7 million in excess storm reserve escrow withdrawals related to Hurricane Zeta and prior miscellaneous storms are properly applied to Hurricane Ida storm restoration costs, the application of which reduces the amount to be recovered from Entergy New Orleans customers by $46 million. The City Council has not yet set a procedural schedule regarding the requested relief, though Entergy New Orleans requested resolution by the end of first quarter 2023. Entergy New Orleans intends to file with the City Council an application proposing a financing method for recovery of costs deemed eligible for recovery. Entergy Texas Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta caused extensive damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri also caused damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In July 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application for a financing order to approve the securitization of certain system restoration costs, which were approved by the PUCT as eligible for securitization in December 2021. In November 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement supporting the issuance of a financing order consistent with Entergy Texas’s application and with minor adjustments to certain upfront and ongoing costs to be incurred to facilitate the issuance and serving of system restoration bonds. In January 2022 the PUCT issued a financing order consistent with the unopposed settlement. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Texas reclassified $153 million from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In April 2022, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $290.85 million of senior secured system restoration bonds (securitization bonds). With the proceeds, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a system restoration charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. Entergy Texas began cost recovery through the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of May 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the April 2022 issuance of the securitization bonds.
System Energy [Member] |
Rate and Regulatory Matters | NOTE 2. RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS (Entergy Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy) Regulatory Assets and Regulatory Liabilities 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 Arkansas Energy Cost Recovery Rider In March 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed its annual redetermination of its energy cost rate pursuant to the energy cost recovery rider, which reflected an increase from $0.00959 per kWh to $0.01785 per kWh. The primary reason for the rate increase is a large under-recovered balance as a result of higher natural gas prices in 2021, particularly in the fourth quarter 2021. At the request of the APSC general staff, Entergy Arkansas deferred its request for recovery of $32 million from the under-recovery related to the 2021 February winter storms until the 2023 energy cost rate redetermination, unless a request for an interim adjustment to the energy cost recovery rider is necessary. This resulted in a redetermined rate of $0.016390 per kWh, which became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2022 through the normal operation of the tariff. Entergy Louisiana As discussed in the Form 10-K, in February 2021, Entergy Louisiana incurred extraordinary fuel costs associated with the February 2021 winter storms. To mitigate the effect of these costs on customer bills, in March 2021, Entergy Louisiana requested and the LPSC approved the deferral and recovery of $166 million in incremental fuel costs over five months beginning in April 2021. In April 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause charges in February 2021 that did not recommend any financial disallowances, but included several prospective recommendations. Responsive testimony was filed by one intervenor and the parties agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. In May 2022 the LPSC staff issued a draft audit report regarding Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment charges in February 2021 that did not propose any financial disallowances. The LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana have agreed to suspend any procedural schedule and move toward settlement discussions to close the matter. To mitigate high electric bills, primarily driven by high summer usage and elevated gas prices, Entergy Louisiana has deferred approximately $135 million of fuel expense incurred in April, May, and June 2022 (as reflected on June, July, and August 2022 bills). Deferrals from April and May 2022 are expected to be recovered in the last four months of 2022 and June 2022 deferrals will be included in the over/under calculation of the fuel adjustment clause. Entergy Mississippi See “Complaints Against System Energy - System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of the settlement agreement filed with the FERC in June 2022. The settlement, which is contingent upon FERC approval, provides for a refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi. In July 2022 the MPSC directed the disbursement of settlement proceeds, ordering Entergy Mississippi to provide a one-time $80 bill credit to each of its approximately 460,000 retail customers to be effective during the September 2022 billing cycle, and to apply the remaining proceeds to Entergy Mississippi’s under-recovered deferred fuel balance. Entergy Texas In May 2022, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT to implement an interim fuel surcharge to collect the cumulative under-recovery of approximately $51.7 million, including interest, of fuel and purchased power costs incurred from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. The under-recovery balance is primarily attributable to the impacts of Winter Storm Uri, including historically high natural gas prices, partially offset by settlements received by Entergy Texas from MISO related to Hurricane Laura. Entergy Texas proposed that the interim fuel surcharge be assessed over a period of six months beginning with the first billing cycle after the PUCT issues a final order, but no later than the first billing cycle of September 2022. Also in May 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed settlement resolving all issues in the proceeding. In addition, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a motion to admit evidence, to approve interim rates as requested in the initial application, and to remand the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the unopposed settlement. In August 2022 the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting Entergy Texas’s motion, approving interim rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022, and remanding the case to the PUCT for final approval. Retail Rate Proceedings See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding retail rate proceedings involving the Utility operating companies. The following are updates to that discussion. Filings with the APSC (Entergy Arkansas) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In July 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2022 formula rate plan filing to set its formula rate for the 2023 calendar year. The filing contained an evaluation of Entergy Arkansas’s earnings for the projected year 2023 and a netting adjustment for the historical year 2021. The filing showed that Entergy Arkansas’s earned rate of return on common equity for the 2023 projected year is 7.40% resulting in a revenue deficiency of $104.8 million. The earned rate of return on common equity for the 2021 historical year was 8.38% resulting in a $15.2 million netting adjustment. The total proposed revenue change for the 2023 projected year and 2021 historical year netting adjustment is $119.9 million. By operation of the formula rate plan, Entergy Arkansas’s recovery of the revenue requirement is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint. Because Entergy Arkansas’s revenue requirement in this filing exceeded the constraint, the resulting increase is limited to $79.3 million. COVID-19 Orders See the Form 10-K for discussion of APSC orders issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Arkansas had a regulatory asset of $36.6 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the LPSC (Entergy Louisiana) Retail Rates - Electric 2021 Formula Rate Plan Filing In May 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2021 calendar year operations. The 2021 test year evaluation report produced an earned return on common equity of 8.33%, with a base formula rate plan revenue increase of $65.3 million. Other increases in formula rate plan revenue driven by reductions in Tax Cut and Jobs Act credits and additions to transmission and distribution plant in service reflected through the transmission recovery mechanism and distribution recovery mechanism are partly offset by an increase in net MISO revenues, leading to a net increase in formula rate plan revenue of $152.9 million. The effects of the changes to total formula rate plan revenue are different for each legacy company, primarily due to differences in the legacy companies’ capacity cost changes, including the effect of true-ups. Legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $86 million and legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenues will increase by $66.9 million. Subject to refund and LPSC review, the resulting changes will be effective for bills rendered during the first billing cycle of September 2022. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the LPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses incurred from the suspension of disconnections and collection of late fees imposed by LPSC orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, utilities may seek future recovery, subject to LPSC review and approval, of losses and expenses incurred due to compliance with the LPSC’s COVID-19 orders. Utilities seeking to recover the regulatory asset must formally petition the LPSC to do so, identifying the direct and indirect costs for which recovery is sought. Any such request is subject to LPSC review and approval. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Louisiana had a regulatory asset of $47.8 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Filings with the MPSC (Entergy Mississippi) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In March 2022, Entergy Mississippi submitted its formula rate plan 2022 test year filing and 2021 look-back filing showing Entergy Mississippi’s earned return for the historical 2021 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth and projected earned return for the 2022 calendar year to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The 2022 test year filing shows a $69 million rate increase is necessary to reset Entergy Mississippi’s earned return on common equity to the specified point of adjustment of 6.70% return on rate base, within the formula rate plan bandwidth. The change in formula rate plan revenues, however, is capped at 4% of retail revenues, which equates to a revenue change of $48.6 million. The 2021 look-back filing compares actual 2021 results to the approved benchmark return on rate base and reflects the need for a $34.5 million interim increase in formula rate plan revenues. In fourth quarter 2021, Entergy Mississippi recorded a regulatory asset of $19 million to reflect the then-current estimate in connection with the look-back feature of the formula rate plan. In accordance with the provisions of the formula rate plan, Entergy Mississippi implemented a $24.3 million interim rate increase, reflecting a cap equal to 2% of 2021 retail revenues, effective in April 2022. In June 2022, Entergy Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff entered into a joint stipulation that confirmed the 2022 test year filing that resulted in a total rate increase of $48.6 million. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, Entergy Mississippi’s 2021 look-back filing reflected an earned return on rate base of 5.99% in calendar year 2021, which is below the look-back bandwidth, resulting in a $34.3 million increase in the formula rate plan revenues on an interim basis through June 2023. In July 2022 the MPSC approved the joint stipulation with rates effective in August 2022. In July 2022 the MPSC directed Entergy Mississippi to flow $14.1 million of the power management rider over-recovery balance to customers beginning in August 2022 through December 2022 to mitigate the bill impact of the increase in formula rate plan revenues. Sunflower Solar As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order approving certification of the Sunflower Solar facility and its recovery through the interim capacity rate adjustment mechanism, subject to certain conditions. In July 2022, pursuant to the MPSC’s April 2020 order, Entergy Mississippi submitted a compliance filing to the MPSC with updated calculations of the impact of the Sunflower Solar facility on rate base and revenue requirement for the Sunflower Solar facility and benefits of the tax equity partnership. See Note 14 to the financial statements herein for discussion of Entergy Mississippi’s purchase of the Sunflower Solar facility. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in April 2020 the MPSC issued an order authorizing utilities to defer incremental costs and expenses associated with COVID-19 compliance and to seek future recovery through rates of the prudently incurred incremental costs and expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Mississippi had a regulatory asset of $13.1 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Entergy Mississippi received approval to recover this regulatory asset through its formula rate plan rider over a three-year period beginning August 2022. Filings with the City Council (Entergy New Orleans) Retail Rates 2022 Formula Rate Plan Filing In April 2022, Entergy New Orleans submitted to the City Council its formula rate plan 2021 test year filing. The 2021 test year evaluation report, subsequently updated in a July 2022 filing, produced an earned return on equity of 6.88% compared to the authorized return on equity of 9.35%. Entergy New Orleans seeks approval of a $42.1 million rate increase based on the formula set by the City Council in the 2018 rate case. The formula results in an increase in authorized electric revenues of $34.1 million and an increase in authorized gas revenues of $3.3 million. Entergy New Orleans also seeks to commence collecting $4.7 million in electric revenues that were previously approved by the City Council for collection through the formula rate plan. In July 2022 the City Council’s advisors issued a report seeking a reduction to Entergy New Orleans’s proposed increase of approximately $17.1 million in total for electric and gas revenues. The parties have a 25-day period to attempt to reach an agreement on the final amount to increase revenues, with implementation of resulting rates effective with the first billing cycle of September 2022 pursuant to the formula rate plan tariff. For any disputed rate adjustments, however, the City Council will set a procedural schedule that will extend the process for City Council approval of disputed rate adjustments. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the City Council issued an accounting order authorizing Entergy New Orleans to establish a regulatory asset for incremental COVID-19-related expenses. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy New Orleans had a regulatory asset of $14.5 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 formula rate plan filing, Entergy New Orleans requested recovery of this regulatory asset over a five-year period beginning September 2022. Filings with the PUCT and Texas Cities (Entergy Texas) Retail Rates 2022 Base Rate Case In July 2022, Entergy Texas filed a base rate case with the PUCT seeking an increase in base rates of approximately $131.4 million. The base rate case was based on a 12-month test year ending December 31, 2021. Key drivers of the requested increase are changes in depreciation rates as the result of a depreciation study and an increase in the return on equity. In addition, Entergy Texas included capital additions placed into service for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021, including those additions currently reflected in the distribution and transmission cost recovery factor riders and the generation cost recovery rider, all of which would be reset to zero as a result of this proceeding. In July 2022, the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Also in July 2022, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings approved a procedural schedule with a hearing on the merits in December 2022. Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its DCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $40.2 million annually, or $13.9 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Entergy Texas’s currently effective DCRF rider based on its capital invested in distribution between September 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in December 2021. In December 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested DCRF revenue requirement and resolving all issues in the proceeding, including a motion for interim rates to take effect for usage on and after January 24, 2022. Also, in December 2021, the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting the motion for interim rates, which went into effect in January 2022, admitting evidence, and remanding the proceeding to the PUCT to consider the settlement. In March 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (TCRF) Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT a request to amend its TCRF rider. The proposed rider is designed to collect from Entergy Texas’s retail customers approximately $66.1 million annually, or $15.1 million in incremental annual revenues beyond Energy Texas’s currently effective TCRF rider based on its capital invested in transmission between September 1, 2020 and July 31, 2021 and changes in approved transmission charges. In January 2022 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. In February 2022 the parties filed an unopposed settlement recommending that Entergy Texas be allowed to collect its full requested TCRF revenue requirement with interim rates effective March 2022. In February 2022 the ALJ granted the motion for interim rates, admitted evidence, and remanded the case to the PUCT for consideration of a final order at a future open meeting. In June 2022 the PUCT issued an order approving the settlement. Generation Cost Recovery Rider As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Entergy Texas filed an application to establish a generation cost recovery rider to begin recovering a return of and on its generation capital investment in the Montgomery County Power Station through August 31, 2020, which was approved by the PUCT on an interim basis in January 2021. In March 2021, Entergy Texas filed to update its generation cost recovery rider to include its generation capital investment in Montgomery County Power Station after August 31, 2020 and an unopposed settlement agreement filed on behalf of the parties by Entergy Texas in October 2021 was approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In February 2022, Entergy Texas filed a relate-back rider to collect over five months an additional approximately $5 million, which is the difference between the interim revenue requirement approved in January 2021 and the revenue requirement approved in January 2022 that reflects Entergy Texas’s full generation capital investment and ownership in Montgomery County Power Station on January 1, 2021, plus carrying costs from January 2021 through January 2022 when the updated revenue requirement took effect. In April 2022, Entergy Texas and PUCT staff filed a joint proposed order that supports approval of Entergy Texas’s as-filed request. In December 2020, Entergy Texas also filed an application to amend its generation cost recovery rider to reflect its acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility, which closed in June 2021. Because Hardin was to be acquired in the future, the initial generation cost recovery rider rates proposed in the application represented no change from the generation cost recovery rider rates established in Entergy Texas’s previous generation cost recovery rider proceeding. In July 2021 the PUCT issued an order approving the application. In August 2021, Entergy Texas filed an update application to recover its actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. In September 2021 the PUCT referred the proceeding to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. A procedural schedule was established with a hearing scheduled in April 2022. In January 2022, Entergy Texas filed an update to its application to align the requested revenue requirement with the terms of the generation cost recovery rider settlement approved by the PUCT in January 2022. In March 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties an unopposed motion, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, to abate the procedural schedule indicating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle. In April 2022, Entergy Texas filed on behalf of the parties a unanimous settlement agreement that would adjust its generation cost recovery rider to recover an annual revenue requirement of approximately $92.8 million, which is $4.5 million in incremental annual revenue above the $88.3 million approved in January 2022, related to Entergy Texas’s actual investment in the acquisition of the Hardin County Peaking Facility. Concurrently with filing of the unanimous settlement agreement, Entergy Texas submitted an agreed motion to admit evidence and remand the case to the PUCT for review and consideration of the settlement agreement, which motion was granted by the ALJ with the State Office of Administrative Hearings. COVID-19 Orders As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2020 the PUCT authorized electric utilities to record as a regulatory asset expenses resulting from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In future proceedings, the PUCT will consider whether each utility's request for recovery of these regulatory assets is reasonable and necessary, the appropriate period of recovery, and any amount of carrying costs thereon. As of June 30, 2022, Entergy Texas had a regulatory asset of $10.4 million for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its 2022 base rate case filing, Entergy Texas requested recovery of its regulatory asset over a three-year period beginning December 2022. Entergy Arkansas Opportunity Sales Proceeding See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion of the Entergy Arkansas opportunity sales proceeding. As discussed in the Form 10-K, in September 2020, Entergy Arkansas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging the APSC’s order denying Entergy Arkansas’s request to recover the costs of the opportunity sales payments made to the other Utility operating companies. In October 2020 the APSC filed a motion to dismiss Entergy Arkansas’s complaint. In March 2022 the court denied the APSC’s motion to dismiss and, in April 2022, issued a scheduling order including a trial date in February 2023. In June 2022, Entergy Arkansas filed a motion asserting that it is entitled to summary judgment because Entergy Arkansas’s position that the APSC’s order is pre-empted by the filed rate doctrine and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause is premised on facts that are not subject to genuine dispute. In July 2022, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc., an industrial customer association, filed a motion to intervene and to hold Entergy Arkansas’s motion for summary judgment in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion to intervene. Entergy Arkansas filed a consolidated opposition to both motions. Complaints Against System Energy See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for information regarding pending complaints against System Energy. The following are updates to that discussion. See “System Energy Settlement with the MPSC” below for discussion of a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement related to the pending proceedings before the FERC. Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in March 2021 the FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the proceeding against System Energy regarding the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. With regard to System Energy’s authorized return on equity, the ALJ determined that the existing return on equity of 10.94% is no longer just and reasonable, and that the replacement authorized return on equity, based on application of the Opinion No. 569-A methodology, should be 9.32%. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (January 2017-April 2018) based on the difference between the current return on equity and the replacement authorized return on equity. The ALJ determined that the April 2018 complaint concerning the authorized return on equity should be dismissed, and that no refunds for a second fifteen-month refund period should be due. With regard to System Energy’s capital structure, the ALJ determined that System Energy’s actual equity ratio is excessive and that the just and reasonable equity ratio is 48.15% equity, based on the average equity ratio of the proxy group used to evaluate the return on equity for the second complaint. The ALJ further determined that System Energy should pay refunds for a fifteen-month refund period (September 2018-December 2019) based on the difference between the actual equity ratio and the 48.15% equity ratio. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this proceeding is approximately $61 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022, and the estimated resulting annual rate reduction would be approximate ly $50 million. The estimated refund will continue to accrue interest until a final FERC decision is issued. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. In April 2021, System Energy filed its brief on exceptions, in which it challenged the initial decision’s findings on both the return on equity and capital structure issues. Also in April 2021 the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, City Council, and the FERC trial staff filed briefs on exceptions. Reply briefs opposing exceptions were filed in May 2021 by System Energy, the FERC trial staff, the LPSC, APSC, MPSC, and the City Council. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2018 the LPSC filed a complaint against System Energy and Entergy Services related to System Energy’s renewal of a sale-leaseback transaction originally entered into in December 1988 for an 11.5% undivided interest in Grand Gulf Unit 1. A hearing was held before a FERC ALJ in November 2019. In April 2020 the ALJ issued the initial decision. Among other things, the ALJ determined that refunds were due on three main issues. First, with regard to the lease renewal payments, the ALJ determined that System Energy is recovering an unjust acquisition premium through the lease renewal payments, and that System Energy’s recovery from customers through rates should be limited to the cost of service based on the remaining net book value of the leased assets, which is approximately $70 million. The ALJ found that the remedy for this issue should be the refund of lease payments (approximately $17.2 million per year since July 2015) with interest determined at the FERC quarterly interest rate, which would be offset by the addition of the net book value of the leased assets in the cost of service. The ALJ did not calculate a value for the refund expected as a result of this remedy. In addition, System Energy would no longer recover the lease payments in rates prospectively. Second, with regard to the liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions, the ALJ determined that the liabilities are accumulated deferred income taxes and that System Energy’s rate base should have been reduced for those liabilities. If the ALJ’s initial decision is upheld, the estimated refund for this issue through June 30, 2022 is approximately $422 million, plus interest, which is approxim ately $139 million through June 30, 2022. The ALJ also found that System Energy should include liabilities associated with uncertain tax positions as a rate base reduction going forward. Third, with regard to the depreciation expense adjustments, the ALJ found that System Energy should correct for the error in re-billings retroactively and prospectively, but that System Energy should not be permitted to recover interest on any retroactive return on enhanced rate base resulting from such corrections. If the initial decision is affirmed on this issue, System Energy estimates refunds of approximately $19 million, which includes interest through June 30, 2022. The ALJ initial decision is an interim step in the FERC litigation process, and an ALJ’s determinations made in an initial decision are not controlling on the FERC. The ALJ in the initial decision acknowledges that these are issues of first impression before the FERC. The case is pending before the FERC, which will review the case and issue an order on the proceeding, and the FERC may accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s initial decision in whole or in part. Refunds, if any, that might be required will only become due after the FERC issues its order reviewing the initial decision. LPSC Additional Complaints As discussed in the Form 10-K, in May 2020 the LPSC authorized its staff to file additional complaints at the FERC related to the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf energy and capacity supplied to Entergy Louisiana under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint The first of the additional complaints was filed by the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, and the City Council in September 2020. The first complaint raises two sets of rate allegations: violations of the filed rate and a corresponding request for refunds for prior periods; and elements of the Unit Power Sales Agreement are unjust and unreasonable and a corresponding request for refunds for the 15-month refund period and changes to the Unit Power Sales Agreement prospectively. In May 2021 the FERC issued an order addressing the complaint, establishing a refund effective date of September 21, 2020, establishing hearing procedures, and holding those procedures in abeyance pending the FERC’s review of the initial decision in the Grand Gulf sale-leaseback renewal complaint discussed above. System Energy agreed that the hearing should be held in abeyance but sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision as related to matters set for hearing that were beyond the scope of the FERC’s jurisdiction or authority. The complainants sought rehearing of the FERC’s decision to hold the hearing in abeyance and filed a motion to proceed, which motion System Energy subsequently opposed. In June 2021, System Energy’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and System Energy filed an appeal of the FERC’s orders in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was initially stayed for a period of 90 days, but the stay expired. In November 2021 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as premature. In November 2021 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed direct testimony and requested the FERC to order refunds for prior periods and prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The LPSC’s refund claims include, among other things, allegations that: (1) System Energy should not have included certain sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments; (2) System Energy should have credited rate base to reflect the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) System Energy incorrectly included refueling outage costs that were recorded in account 174 in rate base; and (4) System Energy should have excluded several accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 from rate base. The LPSC is also seeking a retroactive adjustment to retained earnings and capital structure in conjunction with the implementation of its proposed refunds. In addition, the LPSC seeks amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement going forward to address below-the-line costs, incentive compensation, the working capital allowance, litigation expenses, and the 2019 termination of the capital funds agreement. The APSC argues that: (1) System Energy should have included borrowings from the Entergy System money pool in its determination of short-term debt in its cost of capital; and (2) System Energy should credit customers with System Energy’s allocation of earnings on money pool investments. The City Council alleges that System Energy has maintained excess cash on hand in the money pool and that retention of excess cash was imprudent. Based on this allegation, the City Council’s witness recommends a refund of approximately $98.8 million for the period 2004-September 2021 or other alternative relief. The City Council further recommends that the FERC impose a hypothetical equity ratio such as 48.15% equity to capital on a prospective basis. In January 2022, System Energy filed answering testimony arguing that the FERC should not order refunds for prior periods or any prospective amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In response to the LPSC’s refund claims, System Energy argues, among other things, that: (1) the inclusion of sale-leaseback transaction costs in prepayments was correct; (2) the filed rate doctrine bars the request for a retroactive credit to rate base for the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (3) an accounting misclassification for deferred refueling outage costs has been corrected, caused no harm to customers, and requires no refunds; and (4) its accounting and ratemaking treatment of specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 has been correct. System Energy further responds that no retroactive adjustment to retained earnings or capital structure should be ordered because there is no general policy requiring such a remedy and there was no showing that the retained earnings element of the capital structure was incorrectly implemented. Further, System Energy presented evidence that all of the costs that are being challenged were long known to the retail regulators and were approved by them for inclusion in retail rates, and the attempt to retroactively challenge these costs, some of which have been included in rates for decades, is unjust and unreasonable. In response to the LPSC’s proposed going-forward adjustments, System Energy presents evidence to show that none of the proposed adjustments are needed. On the issue of below-the-line expenses, during discovery procedures, System Energy identified a historical allocation error in certain months and agreed to provide a bill credit to customers to correct the error. In response to the APSC’s claims, System Energy argues that the Unit Power Sales Agreement does not include System Energy’s borrowings from the Entergy System money pool or earnings on deposits to the Entergy System money pool in the determination of the cost of capital; and accordingly, no refunds are appropriate on those issues. In response to the City Council’s claims, System Energy argues that it has reasonably managed its cash and that the City Council’s theory of cash management is defective because it fails to adequately consider the relevant cash needs of System Energy and it makes faulty presumptions about the operation of the Entergy System money pool. System Energy further points out that the issue of its capital structure is already subject to pending FERC litigation. In March 2022 the FERC trial staff filed direct and answering testimony in response to the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council’s direct testimony. In its testimony, the FERC trial staff recommends refunds for two primary reasons: (1) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with rate refunds; and (2) it concluded that System Energy should have excluded specified accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. The FERC trial staff recommends refunds of $84.1 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC interest. In addition, the FERC trial staff recommends the following prospective modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement: (1) inclusion of a rate base credit to recognize the time value of money associated with the advance collection of lease payments; (2) exclusion of executive incentive compensation costs for members of the Office of the Chief Executive and long-term performance unit costs where awards are based solely or primarily on financial metrics; and (3) exclusion of unvested, accrued amounts for stock options, performance units, and restricted stock awards. With respect to issues that ultimately concern the reasonableness of System Energy’s rate of return, the FERC trial staff states that it is unnecessary to consider such issues in this proceeding, in light of the pending case concerning System Energy’s return on equity and capital structure. On all other material issues raised by the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council, the FERC trial staff recommends either no refunds or no modification to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. In April 2022, System Energy filed cross-answering testimony in response to the FERC trial staff’s recommendations of refunds for the accumulated deferred income taxes issues and proposed modifications to the Unit Power Sales Agreement for the executive incentive compensation issues. In June 2022 the FERC trial staff submitted revised answering testimony, in which it recommended additional refunds associated with the accumulated deferred income tax balances in account 190 associated with a deemed contract satisfaction and reissuance that occurred in 2005. Based on the testimony revisions, the FERC trial staff’s recommended refunds total $106.6 million, exclusive of any tax gross-up or FERC awarded interest. Also in June 2022, System Energy filed revised and supplemental cross-answering testimony to respond to the changes in the FERC trial staff’s testimony and oppose its revised recommendation. In May 2022 the LPSC, the APSC, and the City Council filed rebuttal testimony. The LPSC’s testimony asserts new claims, including that: (1) certain of the sale-leaseback transaction costs may have been imprudently incurred; (2) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with sale-leaseback transaction costs should have been included in rate base; (3) accumulated deferred income taxes associated with federal investment tax credits should have been excluded from rate base; (4) monthly net operating loss accumulated deferred income taxes should have been excluded from rate base; and (5) several categories of proposed rate changes, including executive incentive compensation, air travel, industry dues, and legal costs, also warrant historical refunds. The LPSC’s rebuttal testimony argues that refunds for the alleged tariff violations and other claims must be calculated by rerunning the Unit Power Sales Agreement formula rate; however, it includes estimates of refunds associated with some, but not all, of its claims, totaling $286 million without interest. The City Council’s rebuttal testimony also proposes a new, alternate theory and claim for relief regarding System Energy’s participation in the Entergy System money pool, under which it calculates estimated refunds of approximately $51.7 million. The APSC’s rebuttal testimony agrees with the LPSC’s direct testimony that retained earnings should be adjusted in a comprehensive refund calculation. The testimony quantifies the estimated impacts of three issues: (1) a $1.5 million reduction in the revenue requirement under the Unit Power Sales Agreement if System Energy’s borrowings from the money pool are included in short-term debt; (2) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement if System Energy’s allocated share of money pool earnings are credited through the Unit Power Sales Agreement; and (3) a $1.9 million reduction in the revenue requirement for every $50 million of refunds ordered in a given year, without interest. In June 2022 a new procedural schedule was adopted, providing for additional rounds of testimony, for the hearing to begin in September 2022, and for the initial decision to be issued in February 2023. In July 2022, System Energy filed responsive rebuttal testimony responding to the new claims in the LPSC’s and the City Council’s rebuttal testimony. Also in July 2022 the LPSC filed supplemental rebuttal testimony responding to System Energy’s revised cross-answering testimony. System Energy Formula Rate Annual Protocols Formal Challenge Concerning 2020 Calendar Year Bills System Energy’s Unit Power Sales Agreement includes formula rate protocols that provide for the disclosure of cost inputs, an opportunity for informal discovery procedures, and a challenge process. In February 2022, pursuant to the protocols procedures, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed with the FERC a formal challenge to System Energy’s implementation of the formula rate during calendar year 2020. The formal challenge alleges: (1) that it was imprudent for System Energy to accept the IRS’s partial acceptance of a previously uncertain tax position; (2) that System Energy should have delayed recording the result of the IRS’s partial acceptance of the previously uncertain tax position until after internal tax allocation payments were made; (3) that the equity ratio charged in rates was excessive; (4) that sale-leaseback rental payments should have been excluded from rates; and (5) that all issues in the ongoing Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint proceeding should also be reflected in calendar year 2020 bills. While System Energy disagrees that any refunds are owed for the 2020 calendar year bills, the formal challenge estimates that the financial impact of the first through fourth allegations is approximately $53 million in refunds, excluding interest which will be calculated after a FERC order is issued; it does not provide an estimate of the financial impact of the fifth allegation. In March 2022, System Energy filed an answer to the formal challenge in which it requested that the FERC deny the formal challenge as a matter of law, or else hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the resolution of related dockets. System Energy Settlement with the MPSC In June 2022, System Energy, Entergy Mississippi, and additional named Entergy parties involved in thirteen docketed proceedings before the FERC filed with the FERC a partial settlement agreement and offer of settlement. The settlement memorializes the Entergy parties’ agreement with the MPSC to globally resolve all actual and potential claims between the Entergy parties and the MPSC associated with those FERC proceedings and with System Energy’s past implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The Unit Power Sales Agreement is a FERC-jurisdictional formula rate tariff for sales of energy and capacity from System Energy’s owned and leased share of Grand Gulf to Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. Entergy Mississippi purchases the greatest single amount, nearly 40% of System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf, after its additional purchases from affiliates are considered. The settlement therefore limits System Energy’s overall refund exposure associated with the identified proceedings because they will be resolved completely as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC. The FERC proceedings that are resolved as between the Entergy parties and the MPSC include the Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints, the Grand Gulf Sale-leaseback Renewal Complaint and Uncertain Tax Position Rate Base Issue, the Unit Power Sales Agreement Complaint, and the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint, all of which are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K, and updated above. They also include the proceedings concerning System Energy’s return of excess accumulated deferred income taxes after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the proceedings established to address System Energy’s October 2020 and December 2020 Federal Power Act section 205 filings to provide credits to customers related to the IRS’s decision as to the uncertain decommissioning tax position, also as all discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K. The settlement also resolves the MPSC’s involvement in the formal challenge filed by the retail regulators of System Energy’s customers in connection with the implementation of the Unit Power Sales Agreement annual formula rate protocols for the 2020 test year, which is discussed above. The settlement provides for a black-box refund of $235 million from System Energy to Entergy Mississippi, which will be paid within 120 days of the settlement’s effective date (either the date of the FERC approval of the settlement without material modification, or the date that all settling parties agree to accept modifications or otherwise modify the settlement in response to a proposed material modification by the FERC). In addition, beginning with the July 2022 service month, the settlement provides for Entergy Mississippi’s bills from System Energy to be adjusted to reflect: an authorized rate of return on equity of 9.65%, a capital structure not to exceed 52% equity, a rate base reduction for the advance collection of sale-leaseback rental costs, and the exclusion of certain long-term incentive plan performance unit costs from rates. The settlement is expressly contingent upon the approval of the FERC and the MPSC. It was approved by the MPSC in June 2022. The remaining retail regulators of Entergy’s utility operating company purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (the APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council) may elect to join the settlement. If all of them elect to do so under the terms of the settlement, then the total black-box refund payment by System Energy would be $588.25 million, and the prospective rate adjustments would apply to all purchasers under the Unit Power Sales Agreement. If the FERC approves the settlement in accordance with its terms, then it will become binding upon the Entergy parties and the MPSC even if no additional retail regulators elect to join the settlement. The settlement will have no effect on the rights of non-settling parties to the identified FERC proceedings. System Energy previously recorded a provision and associated liability of $37 million for elements of the applicable litigation. In June 2022, System Energy recorded a regulatory charge of $551 million ($413 million net-of-tax), increasing the regulatory liability to $588 million, which consists of $235 million for the settlement with the MPSC and $353 million for potential future refunds to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans. In August 2022 comments on the settlement were filed by the APSC, the LPSC, the City Council, the FERC trial staff, and a group that refers to itself as the Louisiana Stakeholders, which are three entities that intervened in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding but not any other proceedings that are part of the settlement. The APSC, the LPSC, and the City Council do not intend to join the settlement, but they do not oppose its approval as between the MPSC and the Entergy parties. The FERC trial staff concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. The Louisiana Stakeholders oppose the settlement, alleging it does not resolve the issues raised in the Grand Gulf Prudence Complaint proceeding. Reply comments will be filed later in August 2022. Storm Cost Recovery Filings with Retail Regulators See Note 2 to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for discussion regarding storm cost recovery filings. The following are updates to that discussion. Entergy Louisiana Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, i n August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to portions of Entergy Louisiana’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the outages. Additionally, as a result of Hurricane Laura’s extensive damage to the grid infrastructure serving the impacted area, large portions of the underlying transmission system required nearly a complete rebuild. In February 2021 two winter storms (collectively, Winter Storm Uri) brought freezing rain and ice to Louisiana. Ice accumulation sagged or downed trees, limbs and power lines, causing damage to Entergy Louisiana’s transmission and distribution systems. The additional weight of ice caused trees and limbs to fall into power lines and other electric equipment. When the ice melted, it affected vegetation and electrical equipment, causing additional outages. In April 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri restoration costs and in July 2021, Entergy Louisiana made a supplemental filing updating the total restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by these storms were estimated to be approximately $2.06 billion, including approximately $1.68 billion in capital costs and approximately $380 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs through January 2022, Entergy Louisiana sought an LPSC determination that $2.11 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, was eligible for recovery from customers. Additionally, Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC determine that re-establishment of a storm escrow account to the previously authorized amount of $290 million was appropriate. In July 2021, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. In August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage to Entergy Louisiana’s distribution and, to a lesser extent, transmission systems resulting in widespread power outages. In September 2021, Entergy Louisiana filed an application at the LPSC seeking approval of certain ratemaking adjustments in connection with the issuance of approximately $1 billion of shorter-term mortgage bonds to provide interim financing for restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida, which bonds were issued in October 2021. Also in September 2021, Entergy Louisiana sought approval for the creation and funding of a $1 billion restricted escrow account for Hurricane Ida restoration costs, subject to a subsequent prudence review. After filing of testimony by LPSC staff and intervenors, which generally supported or did not oppose Entergy Louisiana’s requests in regard to Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Ida, the parties negotiated and executed an uncontested stipulated settlement which was filed with the LPSC in February 2022. The settlement agreement contained the following key terms: $2.1 billion of restoration costs from Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Hurricane Zeta, and Winter Storm Uri were prudently incurred and were eligible for recovery; carrying costs of $51 million were recoverable; a $290 million cash storm reserve should be re-established; a $1 billion reserve should be established to partially pay for Hurricane Ida restoration costs; and Entergy Louisiana was authorized to finance $3.186 billion utilizing the securitization process authorized by Act 55, as supplemented by Act 293. The LPSC issued an order approving the settlement in March 2022. As a result of the financing order, Entergy Louisiana reclassified $1.942 billion from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In May 2022 the securitization financing closed, resulting in the issuance of $3.194 billion principal amount of bonds by Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (LCDA), a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. The securitization was authorized pursuant to the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation Act, Part VIII of Chapter 9 of Title 45 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana legislature approved in 2021. The LCDA loaned the proceeds to the LURC. Pursuant to Act 293, the LURC contributed the net bond proceeds to a State legislatively authorized and LURC-sponsored trust, Restoration Law Trust I (the storm trust). Pursuant to Act 293, the net proceeds of the bonds were used by the storm trust to purchase 31,635,718.7221 Class A preferred, non-voting membership interest units (the preferred interests) issued by Entergy Finance Company, LLC, a majority-owned indirect subsidiary of Entergy. Entergy Finance Company is required to make annual distributions (dividends) commencing on December 15, 2022 on the preferred interests issued to the storm trust. These annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana and the LURC, as beneficiaries of the storm trust. Specifically, 1% of the annual dividends received by the storm trust will be distributed to the LURC, for the benefit of customers, and 99% will be distributed to Entergy Louisiana, net of storm trust expenses. The preferred interests have a stated annual cumulative cash dividend rate of 7% and a liquidation price of $100 per unit. The terms of the preferred interests include certain financial covenants to which Entergy Finance Company is subject. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the bonds issued by the LCDA on their balance sheets because the bonds are the obligation of the LCDA. The bonds are secured by system restoration property, which is the right granted by law to the LURC to collect a system restoration charge from customers. The system restoration charge is adjusted at least semi-annually to ensure that it is sufficient to service the bonds. Entergy Louisiana collects the system restoration charge on behalf of the LURC and remits the collections to the bond indenture trustee. Entergy Louisiana began collecting the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of June 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. Entergy and Entergy Louisiana do not report the collections as revenue because Entergy Louisiana is merely acting as a billing and collection agent for the LCDA and the LURC. In the remote possibility that the system restoration charge, as well as any funds in the excess subaccount and funds in the debt service reserve account, are insufficient to service the bonds resulting in a payment default, the storm trust is required to liquidate Entergy Finance Company preferred interests in an amount equal to what would be required to cure the default. The estimated value of this indirect guarantee is immaterial. From the proceeds from the issuance of the preferred membership interests, Entergy Finance Company distributed $1.4 billion to its parent, Entergy Holdings Company, LLC. Subsequently, Entergy Holdings Company liquidated, distributing the $1.4 billion it received from Entergy Finance Company to Entergy Louisiana as holder of 6,843,780.24 units of Class A, 4,126,940.15 units of Class B, and 2,935,152.69 units of Class C preferred membership interests. Entergy Louisiana had acquired these preferred membership interests with proceeds from previous securitizations of storm restoration costs. Entergy Finance Company loaned the remaining $1.7 billion from the preferred membership interests proceeds to Entergy which used the cash to redeem $650 million of 4.00% Series senior notes due July 2022 and indirectly contributed $1 billion to Entergy Louisiana as a capital contribution. Entergy Louisiana used the $1 billion capital contribution to fund its Hurricane Ida escrow account and subsequently withdrew the $1 billion from the escrow account. With a portion of the $1 billion withdrawn from the escrow account and the $1.4 billion from the Entergy Holdings Company liquidation, Entergy Louisiana deposited $290 million in a restricted escrow account as a storm damage reserve for future storms, used $1.2 billion to repay its unsecured term loan due June 2023, and used $435 million to redeem a portion of its 0.62% Series mortgage bonds due November 2023. As discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements herein, the securitization resulted in recognition of a reduction of income tax expense of approximately $290 million by Entergy Louisiana. Entergy’s recognition of reduced income tax expense was offset by other tax charges resulting in a net reduction of income tax expense of $283 million. I n recognition of obligations related to an LPSC ancillary order issued as part of the securitization regulatory proceeding, Entergy Louisiana recorded a $224 million ($165 million net-of-tax) regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect its obligation to share the benefits of the securitization with customers. As discussed in Note 12 to the financial statements herein, Entergy Louisiana consolidates the storm trust as a variable interest entity and the LURC’s 1% beneficial interest is shown as noncontrolling interest in the financial statements. In second quarter 2022, Entergy Louisiana recorded a charge of $31.6 million in other income to reflect the LURC’s beneficial interest in the trust. In April 2022, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC relating to Hurricane Ida restoration costs. Total restoration costs for the repair and/or replacement of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Ida currently are estimated to be approximately $2.54 billion, including approximately $1.96 billion in capital costs and approximately $586 million in non-capital costs. Including carrying costs of $57 million through December 2022, Entergy Louisiana is seeking an LPSC determination that $2.60 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As part of this filing, Entergy Louisiana also is seeking an LPSC determination that an additional $32 million in costs associated with the restoration of Entergy Louisiana’s electric facilities damaged by Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Hurricane Zeta as well as Winter Storm Uri was prudently incurred. This amount is exclusive of the requested $3 million in carrying costs through December 2022. In total, Entergy Louisiana is requesting an LPSC determination that $2.64 billion was prudently incurred and, therefore, is eligible for recovery from customers. As discussed above, in March 2022 the LPSC approved financing of a $1 billion storm escrow account from which funds were withdrawn to finance costs associated with Hurricane Ida restoration. In June 2022, Entergy Louisiana supplemented the application with a request regarding the financing and recovery of the recoverable storm restoration costs. Specifically, Entergy Louisiana requested approval to securitize its restoration costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55 financing, as supplemented by Act 293 of the Louisiana Legislature’s Regular Session of 2021. A procedural schedule has been established with a hearing in December 2022. Entergy New Orleans Hurricane Zeta As discussed in the Form 10-K, in October 2020, Hurricane Zeta caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In March 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $44 million from its funded storm reserves. In May 2021, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that its system restoration costs associated with Hurricane Zeta of approximately $36 million, which included $7 million in estimated costs, were reasonable and necessary to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. In May 2022 the City Council advisors issued a report recommending that the City Council find that Entergy New Orleans acted prudently in restoring service following Hurricane Zeta and approximately $33 million in storm restoration costs were prudently incurred and recoverable. Additionally, the advisors concluded that approximately $7 million of the $44 million withdrawn from its funded storm reserve was in excess of Entergy New Orleans’s costs and should be considered in Entergy New Orleans’s application for certification of costs related to Hurricane Ida, as discussed below. Hurricane Ida As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2021, Hurricane Ida caused significant damage to Entergy New Orleans’s service area, including Entergy’s electrical grid. The storm resulted in widespread power outages, including the loss of 100% of Entergy New Orleans’s load and damage to distribution and transmission infrastructure, including the loss of connectivity to the eastern interconnection. In September 2021, Entergy New Orleans withdrew $39 million from its funded storm reserves. In June 2022, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council requesting approval and certification that storm restoration costs associated with Hurricane Ida of approximately $170 million were reasonable, necessary, and prudently incurred to enable Entergy New Orleans to restore electric service to its customers and to repair Entergy New Orleans’s electric utility infrastructure. Carrying costs through December 2022 related to Hurricane Ida restoration costs were $9 million. Additionally, Entergy New Orleans is requesting approval that the $39 million withdrawal from its funded storm reserve in September 2021 and $7 million in excess storm reserve escrow withdrawals related to Hurricane Zeta and prior miscellaneous storms are properly applied to Hurricane Ida storm restoration costs, the application of which reduces the amount to be recovered from Entergy New Orleans customers by $46 million. The City Council has not yet set a procedural schedule regarding the requested relief, though Entergy New Orleans requested resolution by the end of first quarter 2023. Entergy New Orleans intends to file with the City Council an application proposing a financing method for recovery of costs deemed eligible for recovery. Entergy Texas Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, and Winter Storm Uri As discussed in the Form 10-K, in August 2020 and October 2020, Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Delta caused extensive damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri also caused damage to Entergy Texas’s service area. The storms resulted in widespread power outages, significant damage primarily to distribution and transmission infrastructure, and the loss of sales during the power outages. In July 2021, Entergy Texas filed with the PUCT an application for a financing order to approve the securitization of certain system restoration costs, which were approved by the PUCT as eligible for securitization in December 2021. In November 2021 the parties filed an unopposed settlement agreement supporting the issuance of a financing order consistent with Entergy Texas’s application and with minor adjustments to certain upfront and ongoing costs to be incurred to facilitate the issuance and serving of system restoration bonds. In January 2022 the PUCT issued a financing order consistent with the unopposed settlement. As a result of the financing order, in first quarter 2022, Entergy Texas reclassified $153 million from utility plant to other regulatory assets. In April 2022, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $290.85 million of senior secured system restoration bonds (securitization bonds). With the proceeds, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding II purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a system restoration charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. Entergy Texas began cost recovery through the system restoration charge effective with the first billing cycle of May 2022 and the system restoration charge is expected to remain in place up to 15 years. See Note 4 to the financial statements herein for a discussion of the April 2022 issuance of the securitization bonds.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for public utilities. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 980 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2156578 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_PublicUtilitiesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types: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: |