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

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

Certain abbreviations or acronyms used in the text and notes are defined below:

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

Following are the percentages of Entergy’s consolidated revenues ~~and net income~~ generated by its operating segments and the percentage of total assets held by them. Net income or loss generated by the operating segments is discussed in the sections that follow.

~~Net~~

Following are income ~~(loss)~~statement variances for Utility, Entergy Wholesale Commodities, Parent & Other, and Entergy comparing 2017 to 2016 showing how much the line item increased or (decreased) in comparison to the prior period.

Results of operations for 2017 include: 1) $538 million ($350 million net-of-tax) of impairment charges due to costs being charged to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired value of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet; 2) a reduction in net income of $181 million, including a $34 million net-of-tax reduction of regulatory liabilities, at Utility and $397 million at Entergy Wholesale Commodities and an increase in net income of $52 million at Parent and Other as a result of Entergy’s re-measurement of its deferred tax assets and liabilities not subject to the ratemaking process due to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, which lowered the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%; and 3) a reduction in income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, of $373 million as a result of a change in the tax classification of legal entities that own Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants. See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” below for a discussion of management’s strategy to reduce the size of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet and see Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment and related charges. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the change in the tax classification.

Results of operations for 2016 ~~includes~~include: 1) $2,836 million ($1,829 million net-of-tax) of impairment and related charges primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Palisades, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair ~~values. Net~~values; 2) a reduction of income ~~(loss)~~tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, of $238 million as a result of a change in the tax classification of a legal entity that owned one of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants; income tax benefits as a result of the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit, including a $75 million tax benefit recognized by Entergy Louisiana related to the treatment of the Vidalia purchased power agreement and a $54 million net benefit recognized by Entergy Louisiana related to the treatment of proceeds received in 2010 for ~~2015 includes $2,036~~the financing of Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike storm costs pursuant to Louisiana Act 55; and 3) a reduction in expenses of $100 million ($~~1,317~~64 million net-of-tax) due to the effects of recording in 2016 the final court decisions in several lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment and related charges, see Note 3 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the income tax items, and see Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the spent nuclear fuel litigation.

Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2017 to 2016.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to:

The regulatory credit resulting from reduction of the federal corporate income tax rate variance is due to the reduction of the Vidalia purchased power agreement regulatory liability by $30.5 million and the reduction of the Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation regulatory liabilities by $25 million as a result of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, which lowered the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed further in Note 3 to the financial statements.

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

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales, partially offset by an increase in industrial usage. The increase in industrial usage is primarily due to new customers in the primary metals industry and expansion projects and an increase in demand for existing customers in the chlor-alkali industry.

Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2017 to 2016.

As shown in the table above, net revenue for Entergy Wholesale Commodities decreased by approximately $73 million in 2017 primarily due to the absence of net revenue from the FitzPatrick plant after it was sold to Exelon in March 2017 and lower volume in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear fleet resulting from more outage days in 2017 as compared to 2016. The decrease was partially offset by an increase resulting from the reimbursement agreement with Exelon pursuant to which Exelon reimbursed Entergy for specified out-of-pocket costs associated with preparing for the refueling and operation of FitzPatrick that otherwise would have been avoided had Entergy shut down FitzPatrick in January 2017 and a decrease in nuclear fuel expenses primarily related to the impairments of the Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, and Palisades plants and related assets. Revenues received from Exelon in 2017 under the reimbursement agreement are offset by other operation and maintenance expenses and taxes other than income taxes and had no effect on net income. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the sale of FitzPatrick, the reimbursement agreement with Exelon, and the impairments and related charges.

Following are key performance measures for Entergy Wholesale Commodities for 2017 and 2016.

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $2,360 million for 2016 to $2,468 million for 2017 primarily due to:

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

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including the Union Power Station purchased in March 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

Other income increased primarily due to higher realized gains in 2017 as compared to the prior year on the decommissioning trust fund investments, including portfolio rebalancing in 2017, and an increase in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2017, including the St. Charles Power Station project.

Other expenses increased primarily due to increases in deferred refueling outage amortization costs primarily associated with the most recent ANO plant outages compared to previous outages.

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased from $915 million for 2016 to $929 million for 2017 primarily due to:

The asset write-offs, impairments, and related charges variance is primarily due to $538 million ($350 million net-of-tax) of impairment charges in 2017 compared to $2,836 million ($1,829 million net-of-tax) of impairment and related charges in 2016. The impairment charges in 2017 are due to nuclear fuel spending, nuclear refueling outage spending, and expenditures for capital assets being charged to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired value of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet. See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” below for a discussion of management’s strategy to reduce the size of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet. The impairment and related charges in 2016 were primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ ~~FitzPatrick, Pilgrim,~~Palisades, Indian Point 2,

Taxes other than income taxes decreased primarily due to the absence of ad valorem taxes from the FitzPatrick plant after it was sold to Exelon in March 2017. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the sale of FitzPatrick.

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

Other income increased primarily due to higher realized gains in 2017 as compared to the prior year on the decommissioning trust fund investments, including the result of portfolio rebalancing in 2017, and the increase in value realized upon the receipt from NYPA of the decommissioning trust funds for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants in January 2017. See Note 9 to the financial statements for discussion of the trust transfer agreement with NYPA.

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

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

The effective income tax rate for 2017 was 56.1%. The difference in the effective income tax rate versus the statutory rate of 35% for 2017 was primarily due to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed by President Trump in December 2017, which changed the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective in 2018, partially offset by a change in the tax classification of legal entities that own Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, which resulted in both permanent and temporary differences under the income tax accounting standards. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the change in tax classification.

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

Following are income statement variances for Utility, Entergy Wholesale Commodities, Parent & Other, and Entergy comparing 2016 to 2015 showing how much the line item increased or (decreased) in comparison to the prior period.

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

Results of operations for 2015 include $2,036 million ($1,317 million net-of-tax) of impairment and related charges primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ FitzPatrick, Pilgrim, and

Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to:

The Louisiana business combination customer credits variance is due to a regulatory liability of $107 million recorded by Entergy in October 2015 as a result of the Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana business

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

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

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

Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.

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

Following are key performance measures for Entergy Wholesale Commodities for 2016 and 2015.

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

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

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

Other expenses increased primarily due to an increase in nuclear refueling outage expenses as a result of amortization of higher costs associated with refueling outages and increases in decommissioning expenses in 2016 primarily due to revised decommissioning cost studies in 2015 for Grand Gulf and Waterford 3. ~~See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of the revised decommissioning cost studies.~~

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

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

Depreciation and amortization expenses decreased primarily due to:

The gain on sale of asset resulted from the sale in December 2015 of the 583 MW Rhode Island State Energy Center in Johnston, Rhode Island, a business wholly-owned by Entergy in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment. Entergy sold the Rhode Island State Energy Center for approximately $490 million and realized a pre-tax gain of $154 million on the sale. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Rhode Island State Energy Center sale.

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

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

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

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

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law H.R. 1, also known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Act). As a ~~reconciliation~~result of the Act, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries re-measured their deferred tax assets and liabilities in December 2017 to reflect the reduction in the federal ~~statutory~~corporate income tax rate offrom 35% to ~~the~~21% that is effective ~~income tax rate.~~

On a going forward basis, after going through the appropriate regulatory processes Entergy expects the Act to reduce its operating cash flows because the lower federal corporate income tax rate will result in lower income tax expense collected in revenues and as excess deferred income taxes are returned to customers. In general, rate base is expected to increase over time as a consequence of the ~~business~~Act as the excess deferred income taxes are returned to customers. Entergy expects to finance its incremental cash requirements as a consequence of these changes through a combination of Registrant Subsidiary debt and ~~customer credits. Results of operations for 2015 also include~~Entergy Corporation debt and equity. Entergy Corporation expects the sale in December 2015 of the 583 MW Rhode Island State Energy Center for a realized gain of $154 million ($100 million net-of-tax) on the sale and the $77 million ($47 million net-of-tax) write-off and regulatory charges to recognize that aequity portion of this financing to be approximately $1 billion, and currently expects to issue all of this equity before the ~~assets associated with the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project~~end of 2019. It is no longer probable of recovery. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Rhode Island State Energy Center sale. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Waterford 3 write-off.

The ~~retail electric price variance is primarily due to:~~

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

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

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

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee has an outstanding credit facility with borrowing capacity of ~~$100~~$145 million to pay for dry fuel storage costs. This credit facility is guaranteed by Entergy Corporation. At or before closing, a subsidiary of Entergy will assume the obligations under the existing credit facility or enter into a new credit facility, and Entergy will guarantee the credit facility. At the closing of the sale transaction, NorthStar will pay $1,000 for the membership interests in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, and NorthStar will cause Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to issue a promissory note to ~~the~~an Entergy ~~entity selling the membership interests in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee.~~affiliate. The amount of the promissory note issued will be equal to the amount drawn under the credit facility or the amount drawn under the new credit facility, plus borrowing fees and costs incurred by Entergy in connection with such facility. The principal amount drawn under the outstanding credit facility was ~~$45~~$104 million as of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, and the net book value of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, including unrealized gains on the decommissioning trust fund, as of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, was approximately ~~$88~~$123 million.

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

The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including approval by the NRC; approval by the State of Vermont Public Utility Commission, including approval of site restoration standards that have been proposed as part of the transaction; the transfer of all spent nuclear fuel to dry fuel storage on the independent spent fuel storage installation; and that the market value of the fund assets held in the decommissioning trust fund for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, less the hypothetical income tax on the aggregate unrealized net gain of such fund assets at closing, is equal to or exceeds $451.95 million, subject to adjustments. ~~The transaction is expected~~Entergy has the option to ~~close by the end of 2018, subject to certain conditions, including the condition that Entergy~~ contribute to the decommissioning trust fund if the value is less than ~~provided for in~~$451.95 million, subject to adjustments. The transaction is planned to close by the ~~agreement with NorthStar.~~end of 2018.

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

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

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

In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy. When Entergy purchased Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust funds and the decommissioning liabilities. NYPA and Entergy subsidiaries executed decommissioning agreements, which specified their decommissioning obligations. NYPA had the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume each of the decommissioning liabilities provided that it assigned the corresponding decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to the Entergy subsidiaries. Under the original agreements, if the decommissioning liabilities were retained by NYPA, the Entergy subsidiaries would perform the decommissioning of the plants at a price equal to the lesser of a pre-specified level or the amount in the decommissioning trust funds. At the time of the acquisition of the plants Entergy recorded a contract asset that represented an estimate of the present value of the difference between the stipulated contract amount for decommissioning the plants less the decommissioning costs estimated in independent decommissioning cost studies. The asset was increased by monthly accretion based on the applicable discount rate necessary to ultimately provide for the estimated future value of the decommissioning contract. The monthly accretion was recorded as interest income. As a result of the agreement with NYPA, in the third quarter 2016, Entergy removed the contract asset from its balance sheet, and recorded receivables for the beneficial interests in the decommissioning trust funds and asset retirement obligations for the decommissioning liabilities. The asset retirement obligations are accreted monthly through a charge to decommissioning expense. The ~~transaction was contingent upon receiving approval from the NRC, which was received in January 2017. The~~ decommissioning trust funds for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants were transferred to Entergy by NYPA in January 2017. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick’s decommissioning liabilities and see Note 16 to the financial statements for further discussion of the receivables for the beneficial interests in Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick’s decommissioning trust ~~funds.~~funds as of December 31, 2016.

In August 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon. NRC approval of the sale was received in March 2017. The transaction ~~is expected to close~~closed in ~~the first half of 2017. The~~March 2017 for a purchase price ~~is $100~~of $110 million, ~~and the assumption by Exelon of certain liabilities related to the FitzPatrick plant, with an additional $10 million non-refundable signing fee,~~ which ~~was paid~~

In October 2015, Entergy determined that it would close the Pilgrim plant. The decision came after management’s extensive analysis of the economics and operating life of the plant following the NRC’s decision in September 2015 to place the plant in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. The Pilgrim plant is expected to cease operations on May 31, 2019, at the end of its current fuel cycle. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the impairment charges associated with the decision to cease operations earlier than expected and see Note 8 for further discussion on the placement of Pilgrim in Column 4.

Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 have been involved, and have faced opposition, in extensive licensing proceedings. In January 2017, Entergy announced that it reached a settlement with New York State to shut down Indian Point 2 by April 30, 2020 and ~~February 2017.~~ Indian Point 3 by April 30, 2021. See further discussion of the licensing proceedings and the settlement reached with New York State in “Entergy ~~expects~~Wholesale Commodities Authorizations to ~~operate the FitzPatrick plant until the asset purchase agreement closing date.~~Operate Indian Point”below.

As discussed above, in August 2016, Entergy entered into a ~~reimbursement~~trust transfer agreement with ~~Exelon pursuant~~NYPA to which Exelon will reimburse Entergy for specified out-of-pocket costs associated with the refueling and operation of FitzPatrick that otherwise would have been avoided had Entergy shut down FitzPatrick in January 2017. Pursuant to the reimbursement agreement, as of December 31, 2016 Exelon reimbursed Entergy $56 million for nuclear fuel expenses and $41 million for other operation and maintenance expenses associated with preparing to refuel FitzPatrick in 2017. In addition, Entergy entered into a transfer agreement whereby Exelon will be entitled to all revenues from FitzPatrick’s electricity and capacity sales for the period that commenced upon completion of the refueling outage through the asset purchase agreement closing date. If the asset purchase agreement is terminated, a termination fee of up to $30 million will be payable to Entergy under certain circumstances. If it is consummated, the transaction could result in a gain or loss because of fluctuations in the decommissioning trust fund ~~earnings~~ and ~~asset retirement obligation accretion. Upon the closing of the sale, the FitzPatrick~~ decommissioning ~~trust along with the decommissioning obligation for that plant will be transfered to Exelon.~~

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

Most of the Palisades output is sold under a power purchase agreement (PPA) with Consumers Energy, entered into when the plant was acquired in 2007, that is ~~currently~~ scheduled to expire in 2022. The PPA prices currently exceed market prices and escalate each year, up to $61.50/MWh in 2022.

In September 2017 the Michigan Public Service Commission issued an order conditionally approving the PPA amendment transaction, but only granting Consumers Energy recovery of $136.6 million of the $172 million requested early termination payment. As a result, Entergy ~~expects~~and Consumers Energy agreed to ~~enter into a new~~terminate the PPA amendment agreement. Entergy will continue to operate Palisades under the current PPA with Consumers Energy, ~~under which~~instead of shutting down in the fall of 2018 as previously planned. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant ~~would continue to operate through October 1, 2018. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion~~permanently on May 31, 2022. As a result of the ~~impairment charges associated with the PPA termination agreement and the decision to cease operations earlier than expected.~~

Entergy incurred approximately $113 million in costs in 2017 and $95 million in costs in 2016 associated with ~~these strategic decisions and transactions~~management’s strategy to ~~exit~~reduce the size of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant ~~power business,~~fleet, primarily employee retention and severance expenses and other benefits-related costs, and contracted economic development contributions. Entergy expects to incur employee retention and severance expenses of approximately ~~$100~~$165 million in ~~2017,~~2018, and approximately ~~$235~~$205 million from ~~2018~~2019 through ~~the end of 2021~~mid-2022 associated with these strategic transactions. See Note 13 to the financial statements for further discussion of these costs.

In 2017, Entergy Wholesale Commodities incurred impairment charges related to nuclear fuel spending, nuclear refueling outage spending, and expenditures for capital assets of $0.5 billion. These costs were charged to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired value of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet. Entergy expects to continue to incur costs associated with nuclear fuel-related spending and expenditures for capital assets and, except for Palisades, expects to continue to charge these costs to expense as incurred because Entergy expects the value of the plants to continue to be impaired.In 2016, Entergy Wholesale Commodities incurred impairment charges of $2.8 billion primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Palisades, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair values. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of these impairment charges.

In April 2007, Entergy submitted to the NRC a joint application to renew the operating licenses for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 for an additional 20 years. The original expiration dates of the NRC operating licenses for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 were in September 2013 and December 2015, respectively. ~~Authorization to operate~~While the NRC staff reviews the license renewal applications, Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 rests on Entergy’s having timely filed a license renewal application that remains pending before the NRC. Each of Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 has now entered its “period of extended operation” after expiration of the plant’s3’s initial license ~~term~~terms have expired and the plants are operating under “timely renewal,” which is a federal statutory rule of general applicability providing for extension of a license for which a renewal application has been timely filed with the licensing agency. ~~The license renewal application for~~

In January 2017, Entergy reached a settlement with New York State, several State agencies, and Riverkeeper, Inc., under which Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 ~~qualifies~~will cease commercial operation by April 30, 2020 and April 30, 2021, respectively, subject to certain conditions, including New York State’s withdrawal of opposition to Indian Point’s license renewals and issuance of contested permits and similar authorizations. See Note 14 to the financial statements for ~~timely renewal protection because it met NRC regulatory standards for timely filing.~~

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

Operations may be extended up to four additional years for each unit by mutual agreement of Entergy and New York State based on an exigent reliability need for Indian Point generation. ~~See Note 14 to the financial statements for a discussion of the impairment and related charges associated~~In accordance with the ~~settlement with New York State.~~

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

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

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

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

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

Entergy’s capitalization is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table. The increase in the debt to capital ratio for Entergy as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 is primarily due to ~~the issuance of long-term debt~~an increase in ~~2016 and a decrease~~commercial paper outstanding in ~~retained earnings. See Entergy’s Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for details of the decrease in retained earnings.~~2017 as compared to 2016.

Long-term debt, including the currently maturing portion, makes up most of Entergy’s total debt outstanding. Following are Entergy’s long-term debt principal maturities and estimated interest payments as of December 31, ~~2016.~~2017. To estimate future interest payments for variable rate debt, Entergy used the rate as of December 31, ~~2016.~~2017. The amounts below include payments on ~~the Entergy Louisiana’s Waterford 3 lease obligation and~~ System Energy’s Grand Gulf sale-leaseback transaction, which are included in long-term debt on the balance sheet.

Entergy Corporation has in place a credit facility that has a borrowing capacity of $3.5 billion and expires in August ~~2021. Entergy Corporation also has~~2022. The facility permits the ~~ability to issue~~issuance of letters of credit against ~~50%~~$20 million of the total borrowing capacity of the credit facility. The commitment fee is currently 0.225% of the undrawn commitment amount. Commitment fees and interest rates on loans under the credit facility can fluctuate depending on the senior unsecured debt ratings of Entergy Corporation. The weighted average interest rate for the year ended December 31, ~~2016~~2017 was ~~2.23%~~2.55% on the drawn portion of the facility.

As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, amounts outstanding and capacity available under the $3.5 billion credit facility are:

Entergy Corporation has a commercial paper program with a Board-approved program limit of up to $~~1.5~~2 billion. AtAs of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy Corporation had ~~$344 million~~$1.467 billion of commercial paper outstanding. The weighted-average interest rate for the year ended December 31, ~~2016~~2017 was ~~1.13%~~1.49%.

Capital lease obligations are a minimal part of Entergy’s overall capital structure. Following are Entergy’s payment obligations under those leases.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each had credit facilities available as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 as follows:

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

In addition, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each entered into one or more uncommitted standby letter of credit facilities as a means to post collateral to support its obligations ~~related~~ to MISO. Following is a summary of the uncommitted standby letter of credit facilities as of December 31, ~~2016:~~2017:

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee has a credit facility guaranteed by Entergy Corporation with a borrowing capacity of ~~$100~~$145 million ~~which~~that expires in ~~January 2018.~~November 2020. As of December 31, ~~2016, $45~~2017, $104 million in cash borrowings were outstanding under the credit facility. The weighted average interest rate for the year ended December 31, 2017 was 2.64% on the drawn portion of the facility. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee also ~~has~~had an uncommitted credit facility guaranteed by Entergy Corporation with a borrowing capacity of $85 million ~~which expires~~that expired in January 2018. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, there were no cash borrowings outstanding under the ~~uncommitted~~ credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the Vermont Yankee credit facilities.

Entergy has a minimal amount of operating lease obligations and guarantees in support of unconsolidated obligations. Entergy’s guarantees in support of unconsolidated obligations are not likely to have a material effect on Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Following are Entergy’s payment obligations as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 on non-cancelable operating leases with a term over one year:

Also in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy has ~~$978~~$916 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.

Pursuant to an agreement with certain creditors, Entergy Corporation has agreed to supply System Energy with sufficient capital to:

Following are the amounts of Entergy’s planned construction and other capital investments by operating segment for ~~2017~~2018 through ~~2019.~~2020.

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

In August 2015, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC an application seeking certification that the public necessity and convenience would be served by the construction of the St. Charles Power Station, a nominal 980 megawatt combined-cycle generating unit, on land adjacent to the existing Little Gypsy plant in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. It is currently estimated to cost $869 million to construct, including transmission interconnection and other related costs. Testimony was filed by LPSC staff and intervenors, with LPSC staff concluding that the construction of the project serves the public convenience and necessity. Three intervenors contended that Entergy Louisiana had not established that construction of the project is in the public interest, claiming that the request for proposal excluded consideration of certain resources that could be more cost effective, that the request for proposal provided undue

In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC seeking certification that the public convenience and necessity would be served by the construction of the Lake Charles Power Station, a nominal 994 megawatt combined-cycle generating unit in Westlake, Louisiana, on land adjacent to the existing Nelson plant in Calcasieu Parish. The current estimated cost of the Lake Charles Power Station is $872 million, including estimated costs of transmission interconnection and other related costs. ~~A procedural schedule has been issued, with~~In May 2017 the parties to the proceeding agreed to an ~~evidentiary hearing scheduled for May~~uncontested stipulation finding that construction of the Lake Charles Power Station is in the public interest and ~~June 2017. Subject to timely approval by~~authorizing an in-service rate recovery plan. In July 2017 the LPSC issued an order unanimously approving the stipulation and ~~receipt~~approved certification of ~~other permits~~the unit. Construction is in progress and ~~approvals,~~ commercial operation is ~~estimated~~expected to occur by mid-2020.

In June 2016, Entergy New Orleans filed an application with the City Council seeking a public interest determination and authorization to construct the New Orleans Power Station, a 226 ~~megawatt~~MW advanced combustion turbine in New Orleans, Louisiana, at the site of the existing Michoud generating facility, which ~~facility~~ was ~~deactivated~~retired effective May 31, 2016. The current estimated cost of the New Orleans Power Station is $216 million. A procedural schedule has been established with a decision expected no later than April 2017. Subject to timely approval by the City Council and receipt of other permits and approvals, commercial operation is estimated to occur by late-2019. In January 2017 several intervenors filed testimony opposing the construction of the New Orleans Power Station on various grounds. In ~~February~~July 2017, Entergy New Orleans submitted a supplemental and amending application to the City Council seeking approval to construct either the originally proposed 226 MW advanced combustion turbine, or alternatively, a 128 MW unit composed of natural gas-fired reciprocating engines and a related cost recovery plan. The application included an updated cost estimate of $232 million for the 226 MW advanced combustion turbine. The cost estimate for the alternative 128 MW unit is $210 million. In addition, the application renewed the commitment to pursue up to 100 MW of renewable resources to serve New Orleans. In testimony filed subsequent to Entergy New Orleans’s supplemental and amending application, several intervenors oppose City Council approval of either alternative, while the City Council advisors and one intervenor support the smaller alternative. A contested hearing was held in December 2017 and post-hearing briefs were filed in January 2018. In February 2018 the City Council Utility Committee adopted a ~~motion~~ resolution approving construction of the 128 MW unit. The full City Council is expected

In October 2016, Entergy Texas filed an application with the PUCT seeking certification that the public convenience and necessity would be served by the construction of the Montgomery County Power Station, a nominal 993 ~~megawatt~~MW combined-cycle generating unit in Montgomery County, Texas on land adjacent to the existing Lewis Creek plant. The current estimated cost of the Montgomery County Power Station is $937 million, including ~~estimated costs~~approximately $111 million of transmission interconnection and network upgrades and other related costs. The independent monitor, who oversaw the request for proposal process, filed testimony and a report affirming that the Montgomery County Power Station was selected through an objective and fair request for proposal process that showed no undue preference to any proposal. ~~Discovery has commenced~~In June 2017 parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed stipulation and ~~a procedural schedule has been established~~settlement agreement. The stipulation contemplates that Entergy Texas’s level of cost-recovery for ~~this proceeding, including an evidentiary hearing in May 2017. A PUCT decision regarding~~generation construction costs for Montgomery County Power Station is capped at $831 million, subject to certain exclusions such as force majeure events. Transmission interconnection and network upgrades and other related costs are not subject to the ~~application is expected by October~~$831 million cap. In July 2017 ~~pursuant to a Texas statute requiring~~ the PUCT ~~to issue an order regarding a certificate of convenience and necessity within 366 days of~~approved the ~~filing.~~stipulation. Subject to ~~timely approval by~~ the ~~PUCT and~~timely receipt of other permits and approvals, commercial operation is estimated to occur by mid-2021.

In April 2017, Entergy Louisiana signed a purchase and sale agreement with a subsidiary of Calpine Corporation for the acquisition of a peaking plant. Calpine will construct the plant, which will consist of two natural gas-fired combustion turbine units with a total nominal capacity of approximately 361 MW. The plant, named the Washington Parish Energy Center, will be located in Bogalusa, Louisiana and, subject to permits and approvals, is expected to be completed in 2021. Subject to regulatory approvals, Entergy Louisiana will purchase the plant once it is complete for an estimated total investment of approximately $261 million, including transmission and other related costs. In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC seeking certification of the plant. A procedural schedule has been established, with the deadlines recently extended and the hearing continued from March 2018 until June 2018 in order to allow the parties an opportunity to reach settlement.

See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of filings made by the Utility operating companies regarding the deployment of AMI. The filings included estimates of implementation costs for AMI of $208 million for Entergy Arkansas, $330 million for Entergy Louisiana, $132 million for Entergy Mississippi, $75 million for Entergy New Orleans, and $132 million for Entergy Texas.

Declarations of dividends on Entergy’s common stock are made at the discretion of the Board. Among other things, the Board evaluates the level of Entergy’s common stock dividends based upon earnings per share from the Utility operating segment and the Parent and Other portion of the business, financial strength, and future investment

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

In addition to the authority to fund grant exercises, the Board has authorized share repurchase programs to enable opportunistic purchases in response to market conditions. In October 2010 the Board granted authority for a $500 million share repurchase program. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, $350 million of authority remains under the $500 million share repurchase program. The amount of repurchases may vary as a result of material changes in business results or capital spending or new investment opportunities, or if limitations in the credit markets continue for a prolonged period.

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

Circumstances such as weather patterns, fuel and purchased power price fluctuations, and unanticipated expenses, including unscheduled plant outages and storms, could affect the timing and level of internally generated funds in the future.

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

The FERC has jurisdiction over securities issuances by the Utility operating companies and System Energy, except securities with maturities longer than one year issued by Entergy Arkansas, ~~and Entergy New Orleans,~~ which ~~are~~is subject to the jurisdiction of the ~~APSC and the~~APSC. The City Council ~~respectively.~~has concurrent jurisdiction over Entergy New Orleans’s securities issuances with maturities longer than one year. No regulatory approvals are necessary for Entergy Corporation to issue securities. The current FERC-authorized short-term borrowing limits are effective through October ~~2017.~~2019. Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy have obtained long-term financing authorizations from the FERC that extend through October ~~2017.~~2019. Entergy Arkansas has obtained long-term financing authorization from the APSC that extends through December 2018. Entergy New Orleans also has obtained long-term financing authorization from the City Council that extends through June 2018. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy each have obtained long-term financing authorizations from the FERC that extend through October ~~2017~~2019 for issuances by its respective nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. In addition to borrowings from commercial banks, the Registrant Subsidiaries may also borrow from the Entergy System money ~~pool.~~pool and from other internal short-term borrowing arrangements. The money pool ~~is an intercompany~~and the other internal borrowing ~~arrangement~~arrangements are inter-company borrowing arrangements designed to reduce Entergy’s subsidiaries’ dependence on external short-term borrowings. Borrowings from ~~the money pool~~internal and external short-term borrowings combined may not exceed the FERC-authorized ~~short-term borrowing~~ limits. See Notes 4 and 5 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy’s borrowing limits, authorizations, and amounts outstanding.

As shown in Entergy’s Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 were as follows:

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased by $375 million in 2017 primarily due to:

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

Net cash ~~provided by operating~~flow used in investing activities decreased by ~~$599~~$9 million in ~~2015 primarily due to:~~

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

Net cash flow ~~used in investing~~provided by financing activities ~~decreased~~increased by ~~$346~~$122 million in ~~2015~~2017 primarily due to:

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

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

The FERC regulates wholesale sales of electricity rates and interstate transmission of electricity, including rates for System Energy’s sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. The current return on equity under the Unit Power Sales Agreement is 10.94%. Prior to each operating company’s termination of participation in the System Agreement (Entergy Arkansas in December 2013, Entergy Mississippi in November 2015, and Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each in August 2016), the Utility operating companies engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which was a rate schedule approved by the FERC. Certain of the Utility operating companies’ retail regulators are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC and in federal courts. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the System Agreement proceedings, ~~and~~ a complaint filed with the FERC challenging System Energy’s return on ~~equity.~~equity, and System Energy’s proposed amendments to the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

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

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

As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy in the day ahead or spot markets. ~~In addition to selling the energy produced by its plants,~~ Entergy Wholesale Commodities also sells unforced capacity, which allows load-serving entities to meet specified reserve and related requirements placed on them by the ISOs in their respective areas. Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward physical power contracts consist of contracts to sell energy only, contracts to sell capacity only, and bundled contracts in which it sells both capacity and energy. While the terminology and payment mechanics vary in these contracts, each of these types of contracts requires Entergy Wholesale Commodities to deliver MWh of energy, make capacity available, or both. In addition to its forward physical power contracts, Entergy Wholesale Commodities also uses a combination of financial contracts, including swaps, collars, and options, to manage forward commodity price risk. Certain hedge volumes have price downside and upside relative to market price movement. The contracted minimum, expected value, and sensitivities are provided in the table below to show potential variations. The sensitivities may not reflect the total maximum upside potential from higher market prices. The information contained in the following table represents projections at a point in time and will vary over time based on numerous factors, such as future market prices, contracting activities, and generation. Following is a summary of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ current forward capacity and generation contracts as well as total revenue projections based on market prices as of December 31, ~~2016.~~2017.

Entergy estimates that a positive $10 per MWh change in the annual average energy price in the markets in which the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear business sells power, based on the respective year-end market conditions, planned generation volumes, and hedged positions, would have a corresponding effect on pre-tax income of ~~$37~~$3 million in ~~2017~~2018 and would have had a corresponding effect on pre-tax income of ~~$99~~$37 million in ~~2016.~~2017. A negative $10 per MWh change in the annual average energy price in the markets based on the respective year-end market conditions, planned generation volumes, and hedged positions, would have a corresponding effect on pre-tax income of ($~~31)~~3) million in ~~2017~~2018 and would have had a corresponding effect on pre-tax income of ($~~74)~~31) million in ~~2016.~~2017.

Entergy’s purchase of the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 plants from NYPA included value sharing agreements with NYPA. In October 2007, ~~NYPA~~Entergy subsidiaries and ~~the subsidiaries that own the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 plants~~NYPA amended and restated the value sharing agreements to clarify and amend certain provisions of the original terms. Under the amended value sharing agreements, ~~the~~ Entergy subsidiaries ~~agreed to make~~made annual payments to NYPA based on the generation output of the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants from January 2007 through December 2014. Entergy subsidiaries paid NYPA $6.59 per MWh for power sold from Indian Point 3, up to an annual cap of $48 million, and $3.91 per MWh for power sold from FitzPatrick, up to an annual cap of $24 million. The annual payment for each year’s output was due by January 15 of the following ~~year.~~year, and the final payment to NYPA was made in January 2015. Entergy recorded the liability for payments to NYPA as power iswas generated and sold by Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick. ~~In 2014, Entergy Wholesale Commodities recorded a liability of approximately $72 million for generation during that year.~~ An amount equal to the liability was recorded ~~each year~~ to the plant asset account as contingent purchase price consideration for the plants.

Some of the agreements to sell the power produced by Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ power plants contain provisions that require an Entergy subsidiary to provide credit support to secure its obligations under the agreements. The Entergy subsidiary is required to provide credit support based upon the difference between the current market prices and contracted power prices in the regions where Entergy Wholesale Commodities sells power. The primary form of credit support to satisfy these requirements is an Entergy Corporation guaranty. Cash and letters of credit are also acceptable forms of credit support. At December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, based on power prices at that time, Entergy had liquidity exposure of ~~$128~~$167 million under the guarantees in place supporting Entergy Wholesale Commodities transactions and $8 million of posted cash collateral. In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation’s credit rating to below investment grade, based on power prices as of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy would have been required to provide approximately ~~$57~~$98 million of additional cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, the liquidity exposure associated with Entergy Wholesale Commodities assurance requirements, including return of previously posted collateral from counterparties, would increase by ~~$238~~$372 million for a $1 per MMBtu increase in gas prices in both the ~~short-and~~short- and long-term markets.

~~In 2016,~~Entergy’s Utility and Entergy ~~conducted a comprehensive evaluation~~Wholesale Commodities businesses include the ownership and operation of nuclear generating plants and are, therefore, subject to the ~~Entergy nuclear fleet~~risks related to such ownership and ~~determined that it is necessary to increase~~operation. These include risks related to: the use, storage, and handling and disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive materials; the substantial financial requirements, both for capital investments ~~in its nuclear plants~~and operational needs, to position ~~the~~Entergy’s nuclear fleet to meet its operational ~~goals. These investments will result in increased operating and capital costs associated with operating Entergy’s nuclear plants going forward. The preliminary estimates of~~goals, including the ~~increase to planned capital costs for 2017 through 2019 identified through and associated with this initiative are estimated to be~~$870 million for Utility. The preliminary estimates indicate that the capital costs identified through this initiative for Entergy Wholesale Commodities are expected to have a minimal effect on Entergy’s preliminary capital investment plan estimate for 2017 through 2019. The current estimates of the capital costs identified through this initiative are included in Entergy’s preliminary capital investment plan estimate for 2017 through 2019 given in “Liquidity and Capital Resources - Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital” above. The increase to planned other operation and maintenance expenses identified through and associated with this initiative is preliminarily estimated to be approximately $125 million in 2017 for Utility, with a similar level of expenses expected to continue going forward, and approximately $25 million in 2017 for Entergy Wholesale Commodities, with a similar level of expenses expected to continue going forward while the merchant nuclear plants are operating. In addition, nuclear refueling outage expenses are expected to increase going forward for both Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

See “~~ANO Damage, Outage, and NRC Reviews~~”~~above and~~ Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of the NRC’s decision in March 2015 to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4, of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix, and the resulting significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site.

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

During the scheduled refueling and maintenance outage at Indian Point ~~Unit~~ 2 in the first quarter 2016, comprehensive inspections were done as part of the aging management program that calls for an in-depth inspection of the reactor vessel. Inspections of more than 2,000 bolts in the reactor’s removable insert liner identified issues with roughly 11% of the bolts that required further analysis. Entergy replaced bolts as appropriate, and the unit returned to service onin June ~~16,~~ 2016. ~~The repair costs were accounted for as deferred refueling outage costs and will be amortized over the plant’s subsequent fuel cycle.~~ In ~~addition to the repair costs, Entergy lost net revenue due to the plant being offline. Entergy estimates the negative effect on earnings was approximately $51 million pre-tax in second quarter 2016.~~2016, Entergy evaluated the scope and duration of Indian Point 3’s scheduled refueling outage planned for 2017, which began in March 2017. Based on the results of ~~that~~the 2016 evaluation and analysis, Entergy ~~is extending~~extended Indian Point 3’s planned 2017 outage ~~by 20 days.~~

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

Based on the plant’s ~~recent~~ performance indicators, in November 2016 the NRC placed Grand Gulf in the “regulatory response column,” or Column 2, of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. ~~Additionally,~~Entergy is implementing a plan to restore Grand Gulf to Column 1, including addressing the issues related to the three very low safety significance non-

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

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

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

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

For each regulatory jurisdiction in which they conduct business, the Utility operating companies and System Energy assess whether the regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities continue to meet the criteria for probable future recovery or settlement at each balance sheet date and when regulatory events occur. This assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment for similar costs, and factors such as changes in

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

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

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

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

40

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

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

~~It is possible that significant changes will be made~~See “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - Income Tax Legislation” above and Note 3 to the ~~Internal Revenue Code~~financial statements for discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal income tax legislation enacted in December 2017. Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Trump administration have advanced proposals. Based on current proposals, a reduction in the statutory rate would be offset by modification or elimination of certain tax deductions. Entergy is monitoring the legislative progress. It is possible that such legislative changes would have a significant effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries.

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

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

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

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

In ~~December 2016~~October 2017 the Internal Revenue Service issued ~~proposed~~updated mortality regulations for single employer plans for determining cash contribution ~~requirements, as established by~~requirements. The regulations, based on the ~~Employee Retirement Income Security Act~~Society of ~~1974, as amended and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The proposed regulations would be~~Actuaries’ 2014 mortality table, are effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, and, as such, have no impact on 2017 plan year minimum required contributions. The proposed regulations are generally anticipated to increase the 2018 minimum funding target liability for most pension plans by about 4% to 8%. The new mortality tables were adopted for accounting in 2014.2018.

The estimated ~~2017~~2018 and actual ~~2016~~2017 qualified pension and other postretirement costs and related underlying assumptions and sensitivities are shown below:

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension cost and qualified pension projected benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in millions):

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in millions):

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

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

Accounting standards require an employer to recognize in its balance sheet the funded status of its benefit plans. See Note 11 to the financial statements for a further discussion of Entergy’s funded status.

Entergy’s pension funding in ~~2016~~2017 was ~~$390~~$410 million. Entergy estimates pension contributions will be approximately ~~$409~~$352.1 million in ~~2017;~~2018; although the ~~2017~~2018 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, ~~2017~~2018 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, ~~2017.~~2018.

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

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

Entergy contributed $44.3 million to its postretirement plans in 2017 and plans to contribute $52.3 million in 2018.

In 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as amended, imposed a 40% excise tax on per capita medical benefit costs that exceed certain thresholds. ~~The~~In January 2018 the effective date of the excise tax was delayed and is ~~due~~currently expected to take effect in 2018. There are many technical issues, however, that have not been finalized. In 2017, under the new Presidential administration, the PPACA is expected to be further amended or repealed and replaced.2022. Entergy will continue to monitor developments to determine the possible effect on Entergy.

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

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

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

~~In May 2014~~See Note 1 to the ~~FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).” The ASU’s core principle is that “an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer~~financial statements for discussion of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services.” The ASU details a five-step model that should be followed to achieve the core principle. With FASB issuance of ASU No. 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date,” ASU 2014-09 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2018. Entergy is evaluating its transition approach (which will either be a full retrospective or a modified retrospective transition method) and the effects of the new ~~guidance, most significantly on its~~ accounting for contributions in aid of construction. Entergy’s evaluation of ASU 2014-09 has not identified any effects that it expects will affect materially its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Entergy will continue to monitor, however, the development of industry specific application guidance that could have an effect on this assessment.pronouncements.

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

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

Entergy Corporation’s independent registered public accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP, has issued an attestation report on the effectiveness of Entergy Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, ~~2016.~~2017.

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

Based on management’s assessment of internal controls using the 2013 COSO criteria, management believes that Entergy and each of the Registrant Subsidiaries maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, ~~2016.~~2017. Management further believes that this assessment, combined with the policies and procedures noted above, provides reasonable assurance that Entergy’s and each of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ financial statements are fairly and accurately presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~In December 2013,~~ Entergy ~~joined~~is a member of MISO, a regional transmission organization that maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and manages one of the largest energy markets in the U.S. In the MISO market, Entergy offers its generation and bids its load into the market on an hourly basis. MISO settles these hourly offers and bids based on locational marginal prices, which is pricing for energy at a given location based on a market clearing price that takes into account physical limitations on the transmission system, generation, and demand throughout the MISO region. MISO evaluates the market participants’ energy offers and demand bids to economically and reliably dispatch the entire MISO system. Entergy nets purchases and sales within the MISO market on an hourly basis and reports in operating revenues when in a net selling position for an hour period and in operating expenses when in a net purchasing ~~position.~~position for an hour period.

Property, plant, and equipment is stated at original ~~cost.~~cost less regulatory disallowances and impairments. Depreciation is computed on the straight-line basis at rates based on the applicable estimated service lives of the various classes of property. For the Registrant Subsidiaries, the original cost of plant retired or removed, less salvage, is charged to accumulated depreciation. Normal maintenance, repairs, and minor replacement costs are charged to operating expenses. Substantially all of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ plant is subject to mortgage liens.

Electric plant includes the portions of Grand Gulf and Waterford 3 that ~~have been~~were sold and leased ~~back.~~back in prior periods. For financial reporting purposes, these sale and leaseback arrangements are reflected as financing transactions. In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana completed the first step in a two-step transaction to purchase the undivided interests in Waterford 3 that were previously being leased by acquiring a beneficial interest in the Waterford 3 leased assets. In February 2017 the leases were terminated and the leased assets transferred to Entergy Louisiana. See Note 10 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s purchase of the Waterford 3 leased assets.

Net property, plant, and equipment for Entergy (including property under capital lease and associated accumulated amortization) by business segment and functional category, as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, is shown below:

Depreciation rates on average depreciable property for Entergy approximated 3.0% in 2017, 2.8% in 2016, and 2.9% in ~~2015, and 2.8% in 2014.~~2015. Included in these rates are the depreciation rates on average depreciable Utility property of 2.6% in 2017, 2.6% in 2016, and 2.7% in 2015, ~~and 2.5% 2014,~~ and the depreciation rates on average depreciable Entergy Wholesale Commodities property of ~~5.2%~~22.3% in 2017, 5.2% in 2016, and 5.4% in ~~2015, and 5.5%~~2015. The higher depreciation rate in ~~2014.~~2017 for Entergy Wholesale Commodities reflects the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet.

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

“Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation)” for Entergy is reported net of accumulated depreciation of ~~$169~~$167 million and ~~$164~~$169 million as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, respectively.

Construction expenditures included in accounts payable is ~~$253~~$368 million and ~~$234~~$253 million at December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, respectively.

Net property, plant, and equipment for the Registrant Subsidiaries (including property under capital lease and associated accumulated amortization) by company and functional category, as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, is shown below:

Depreciation rates on average depreciable property for the Registrant Subsidiaries are shown below:

Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation) for Entergy Louisiana is reported net of accumulated depreciation of ~~$154.4~~$152.3 million and ~~$150.1~~$154.4 million as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, respectively. Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation) for Entergy Mississippi is reported net of accumulated depreciation of $0.5 million and $0.5 million as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, respectively. Non-utility property - at cost (less accumulated depreciation) for Entergy Texas is reported net of accumulated depreciation of $4.9 million and $4.9 million as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, respectively.

As of December 31, 2017, construction expenditures included in accounts payable are $58.8 million for Entergy Arkansas, $160.4 million for Entergy Louisiana, $17.1 million for Entergy Mississippi, $2.5 million for Entergy New Orleans, $32.8 million for Entergy Texas, and $33.9 million for System Energy. As of December 31, 2016, construction expenditures included in accounts payable are $40.9 million for Entergy Arkansas, $114.8 million for Entergy Louisiana, $11.5 million for Entergy Mississippi, $2.3 million for Entergy New Orleans, $9.3 million for Entergy Texas, and $6.2 million for System Energy. As of December 31, 2015, construction expenditures included in accounts payable are $43 million for Entergy Arkansas, $68.6 million for Entergy Louisiana, $11.4 million for Entergy Mississippi, $1.5 million for Entergy New Orleans, $33.1 million for Entergy Texas, and $6.8 million for System Energy.

Certain Entergy subsidiaries jointly own electric generating facilities with affiliates or third parties. All parties are required to provide their own financing. The investments, fuel expenses, and other operation and maintenance expenses associated with these generating stations are recorded by the Entergy subsidiaries to the extent of their respective undivided ownership interests. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, the subsidiaries’ investment and accumulated depreciation in each of these generating stations were as follows:

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

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

Entergy Corporation and the majority of its subsidiaries file a United States consolidated federal income tax return. Entergy Louisiana, LLC isand Entergy New Orleans, LLC are not ~~a member~~members of the Entergy Corporation consolidated federal income tax filing group but, rather, isare included in the Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC consolidated federal income tax filing group. Each tax-paying entity records income taxes as if it were a separate taxpayer and consolidating adjustments are allocated to the tax filing entities in accordance with Entergy’s intercompany income tax allocation agreements. Deferred income taxes are recorded for temporary differences between the book and tax basis of assets and liabilities, and for certain losses and credits available for carryforward.

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

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

The following table presents Entergy’s basic and diluted earnings per share calculation included on the consolidated statements of operations:

The calculation of diluted earnings (loss) per share excluded 2,927,512 options outstanding at December 31, 2017, 7,137,210 options outstanding at December 31, 2016, and 7,399,820 options outstanding at December 31, 2015 ~~and 5,743,013 options outstanding at December 31, 2014~~ because they were antidilutive.

Entergy grants stock options, restricted stock, performance units, and restricted stock unit awards to key employees of the Entergy subsidiaries under its Equity Ownership Plans, which are shareholder-approved stock-based compensation plans. These plans are described more fully in Note 12 to the financial statements. The cost of the stock-based compensation is charged to income over the vesting period. Awards under Entergy’s plans generally vest over 3three years.

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

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

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

Entergy Louisiana does not apply regulatory accounting standards to the Louisiana retail deregulated portion of River Bend, the 30% interest in River Bend formerly owned by Cajun, and its steam business, unless specific cost

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

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

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

The allowance for doubtful accounts reflects Entergy’s best estimate of losses on the accounts receivable balances. The allowance is based on accounts receivable agings, historical experience, and other currently available evidence. Utility operating company customer accounts receivable are written off consistent with approved regulatory requirements.

Entergy records decommissioning trust funds on the balance sheet at their fair value. Because of the ability of the Registrant Subsidiaries to recover decommissioning costs in rates and in accordance with the regulatory treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The premiums and costs associated with reacquired debt of Entergy’s Utility operating companies and System Energy (except that portion allocable to the deregulated operations of Entergy Louisiana) are included in regulatory assets and are being amortized over the life of the related new issuances, or over the life of the original debt issuance if the debt is not refinanced, in accordance with ratemaking treatment.

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

Accounting standards regarding non-controlling interests and the classification and measurement of redeemable securities require the classification of preferred securities between liabilities and shareholders’ equity on the balance sheet if the holders of those securities have protective rights that allow them to gain control of the board of directors in certain circumstances. These rights would have the effect of giving the holders the ability to potentially redeem their securities, even if the likelihood of occurrence of these circumstances is considered remote. The Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and, prior to December 1, 2017, Entergy New Orleans articles of incorporation provide, generally, that the holders of each company’s preferred securities may elect a majority of the respective company’s board of directors if dividends are not paid for a year, until such time as the dividends in arrears are paid. Therefore, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans present their preferred securities outstanding between liabilities and shareholders’ equity on the balance sheet. In November 2017, Entergy ~~Louisiana, a limited liability company, had~~New Orleans redeemed its outstanding preferred securities with similar protective rights with respect to unpaid dividends, but provided for the election of board members that would not constitute a majority of the board; and its preferred securities were therefore classified as a component of members’ equity. In September 2015, Entergy Louisiana redeemed or repurchased and canceled its preferred membership interests as part of a multi-step process to ~~effectuate the Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana business combination.~~undertake an internal restructuring. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of ~~the business combination.~~

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

In May 2014 the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).” The ASU’s core principle is that “an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services.” The ASU details a five-step model that should be followed to achieve the core principle. With FASB issuance of ASU No. 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date,” ASU 2014-09 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2018. Entergy ~~is evaluating its transition approach (which will either be a full retrospective or a~~has selected the modified retrospective transition ~~method) and the effects of the new guidance, most significantly on its accounting for contributions in aid of construction.~~method. Entergy’s evaluation of ASU 2014-09 has not identified any effects that it expects will affect materially its results of operations, financial position, or cash ~~flows. Entergy will continue~~flows, other than changes in required financial statement disclosures. The adoption of the ASU did not result in an adjustment to ~~monitor, however, the development~~retained earnings as of ~~industry specific application guidance that could have an effect on this assessment.~~January 1, 2018.

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

In February 2016 the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842).” The ASU’s core principle is that “a lessee should recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from leases.” The ASU considers that “all leases create an asset and a liability,” and accordingly requires recording the assets and liabilities related to all leases with a term greater than 12 months. In January 2018 the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-01, “Leases (Topic 842): Land Easement Practical Expedient for Transition to Topic 842,” providing entities the option to elect not to evaluate existing land easements that are not currently accounted for under the previous lease standard. ASU 2016-02 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2019, ~~with~~and Entergy does not expect to early ~~adoption permitted.~~adopt the standard. Entergy expects that ASU 2016-02 will affect its financial position by increasing the assets and liabilities recorded relating to its operating leases. Entergy is evaluating ASU 2016-02 for other effects on its results of operations, financial position, ~~and~~ cash flows, and financial statement disclosures, as well as the potential to ~~early adopt~~elect various practical expedients permitted by the ~~ASU.~~standards.

In June 2016 the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.” The ASU requires entities to record a valuation allowance on financial instruments recorded at amortized cost or classified as available-for-sale debt securities for the total credit losses expected over the life of the instrument. Increases and decreases in the valuation allowance will be recognized

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

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

In August 2017 the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-12, “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities.” The ASU makes a number of amendments to hedge accounting, most significantly changing the recognition and presentation of highly effective hedges. Upon adoption of the standard there will no longer be separate recognition or presentation of the ineffective portion of highly effective hedges. In addition, the ASU allows entities to designate a contractually-specified component as the hedged risk, simplifies the process for assessing the effectiveness of hedges, and adds additional disclosure requirements for hedges. ASU 2017-12 is effective for Entergy for the first quarter 2019. Entergy does not expect to early adopt the standard. Entergy expects that ASU 2017-12 will affect its net income by eliminating volatility in earnings related to the ineffective portion of designated hedges on nuclear power sales. Entergy is evaluating ASU ~~2016-16~~2017-12 for other effects on its results of operations, financial position, ~~and~~or cash flows.

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

Regulatory assets represent probable future revenues associated with costs that Entergy expects to recover from customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. Regulatory liabilities represent probable future reductions in revenues associated with amounts that Entergy expects to benefit customers through the regulatory ratemaking process under which the Utility business operates. In addition to the regulatory assets and liabilities that are specifically disclosed on the face of the balance sheets, the tables below provide detail of “Other regulatory assets” and “Other regulatory liabilities” that are included on Entergy’s and the Registrant Subsidiaries’ balance sheets as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015:~~2016:

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas are allowed to recover fuel and purchased power costs through fuel mechanisms included in electric and gas rates that are recorded as fuel cost recovery revenues. The difference between revenues collected and the current fuel and purchased power costs is generally recorded as “Deferred fuel costs” on the Utility operating companies’ financial statements. The

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

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

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

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

Total income taxes for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries differ from the amounts computed by applying the statutory income tax rate to income before income taxes. The reasons for the differences for the years 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 are:

Total income taxes for the Registrant Subsidiaries differ from the amounts computed by applying the statutory income tax rate to income before taxes. The reasons for the differences for the years 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 are:

Significant components of accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

Entergy’s estimated tax attributes carryovers and their expiration dates as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 are as follows:

As a result of the accounting for uncertain tax positions, the amount of the deferred tax assets reflected in the financial statements is less than the amount of the tax effect of the federal and state net operating loss carryovers, tax credit carryovers, and other tax attributes reflected on income tax returns. Because it is more likely than not that the benefit from certain state net operating loss and credit carryovers will not be utilized, valuation allowances of $106 million as of December 31, 2017 and $62 million as of December 31, 2016 ~~and $46 million as of December 31, 2015~~ have been provided on the deferred tax assets relating to these state net operating loss and credit carryovers. Additionally, valuation allowances totaling $31 million as of December 31, 2017 and $42.3 million as of December 31, 2016 ~~and $45.5 million as of December 31, 2015~~ have been provided on deferred tax assets related to federal and

Significant components of accumulated deferred income taxes and taxes accrued for the Registrant Subsidiaries as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

The Registrant Subsidiaries’ estimated tax attributes carryovers and their expiration dates as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 are as follows:

As a result of the accounting for uncertain tax positions, the amount of the deferred tax assets reflected in the financial statements is less than the amount of the tax effect of the federal and state net operating loss carryovers and tax credit carryovers.

Accounting standards establish a “more-likely-than-not” recognition threshold that must be met before a tax benefit can be recognized in the financial statements. If a tax deduction is taken on a tax return, but does not meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold, an increase in income tax liability, above what is payable on the tax return, is required to be recorded. A reconciliation of Entergy’s beginning and ending amount of unrecognized tax benefits is as follows:

The balances of unrecognized tax benefits include $1,462 million, $1,240 million, ~~$955 million,~~ and ~~$516~~$955 million as of December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, respectively, which, if recognized, would lower the effective income tax rates. Because of the effect of deferred tax accounting, the remaining balances of unrecognized tax benefits of $3,410 million, $2,670 million, ~~$1,657 million,~~ and ~~$4,221~~$1,657 million as of December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, respectively, if disallowed, would not affect the annual effective income tax rate but would accelerate the payment of cash to the taxing authority to an earlier period.

Entergy accrues interest expense, if any, related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense. Entergy’s December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 accrued balance for the possible payment of interest is approximately $38 million, $30 million, ~~$27 million,~~ and ~~$127~~$27 million, respectively.

A reconciliation of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ beginning and ending amount of unrecognized tax benefits for 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 is as follows:

The Registrant Subsidiaries accrue interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense. Penalties have not been accrued. Accrued balances for the possible payment of interest are as follows:

Entergy and its subsidiaries file U.S. federal and various state and foreign income tax returns. IRS examinations are complete for years before 2012. All state taxing authorities’ examinations are ~~completed~~complete for years before ~~2009.~~2010. Entergy regularly negotiates with the IRS to achieve settlements. The resolution of audit issues could result in significant changes to the amounts of unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months.

In the first quarter 2015, the IRS finalized tax and interest computations from the 2006-2007 audit that resulted in a reversal of Entergy’s provision for uncertain tax positions related to accrued interest of approximately $20 million, including decreases of approximately $4 million for Entergy Arkansas, $11 million for Entergy Louisiana, and $1 million for System Energy.

In the fourth quarter 2009, Entergy filed Applications for Change in Accounting Method (the “2009 CAM”) for tax purposes with the IRS for certain costs under Section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code. In the Applications, Entergy proposed to treat the nuclear decommissioning liability associated with the operation of its nuclear power plants as a production cost properly includable in cost of goods sold. The effect of the 2009 CAM was a $5.7 billion reduction in 2009 taxable income. The 2009 CAM was adjusted to $9.3 billion in 2012.

In the fourth quarter 2012, the IRS disallowed the reduction to 2009 taxable income related to the 2009 CAM. In the third quarter 2013, the Internal Revenue Service issued its ~~RAR~~Revenue Agent Report (RAR) for the tax years 2008-2009. As a result of the issuance of this RAR, Entergy and the IRS resolved all of the 2008-2009 issues described above except for the 2009 CAM. Entergy disagreed with the IRS’s disallowance of the 2009 CAM and filed a protest with the IRS Appeals Division in October 2013.

In August 2015, Entergy and the IRS agreed on the treatment of the 2009 position regarding nuclear decommissioning liabilities from the 2008-2009 audit. The agreement provides that Entergy is entitled to deduct approximately $118 million of the $9.3 billion claimed in 2009. The agreement effectively settled all matters pertaining to the 2009 tax year and increased Entergy’s 2009 federal income tax liability by $2.4 million.

The IRS completed its examination of the 2010 and 2011 tax years and issued its 2010-2011 ~~Revenue Agent Report (RAR)~~RAR in June 2016. Entergy agreed to all proposed adjustments contained in the RAR. As a result of the issuance of the RAR, Entergy Louisiana was able to recognize previously unrecognized tax benefits as follows:

Included in the effect of the computation of the changes in deferred tax assets and liabilities is the recognition threshold and measurement of uncertain tax positions resulting in unrecognized tax benefits. The final economic outcome of such unrecognized tax benefits is generally the result of a negotiated settlement with the IRS that often differs from the amount that is recorded as realizable under GAAP. The intrinsic uncertainty with respect to ~~achieve settlements.~~all such tax positions means that the difference between current estimates of such amounts likely to be realized and actual amounts realized upon settlement may have an effect on income tax expense and the regulatory liability for income taxes in future periods.

In October 2015 two of Entergy’s Louisiana utilities, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, combined their businesses into a legal entity which is identified as Entergy Louisiana herein. The structure of the business combination generated both a permanent difference and a temporary difference under FASB ASC Topic 740. The permanent difference resulted from recognition of the Waterford 3 and River Bend decommissioning liabilities as part of the business combination. Recognition of such decommissioning liabilities required Entergy to also recognize a taxable gain. The taxable gain resulted in a temporary difference because the gain provided for an increase in tax basis. Entergy Louisiana maintained a carryover tax basis in the assets received; and, to the extent that the increase in tax basis will provide additional tax depreciation, Entergy recorded a deferred tax asset. Entergy Louisiana obtained the corresponding deferred tax asset in the business combination. The permanent tax benefit net of ancillary tax charges was approximately $334 million. Consistent with the terms of the stipulated settlement in the business combination proceeding, electric customers of Entergy Louisiana will realize customer credits associated with the business combination. Accordingly, in October 2015, Entergy recorded a regulatory liability of $107 million ($66 million net-of-tax) which partially offsets the effect of the aforementioned deferred tax asset. The deferred tax asset and the regulatory liability, net-of-tax, increased Entergy Louisiana’s member’s equity by $268 million. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the business combination.

The tax classification of the entity that owned FitzPatrick changed in the second quarter 2016. The change in tax classification required Entergy to recognize the plant’s nuclear decommissioning liability for income tax purposes resulting in a tax accounting permanent difference that reduced income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, by $238 million. The accrual of the nuclear decommissioning liability also required Entergy to recognize a gain for income tax purposes, a significant portion of which resulted in an increase in tax basis of the assets. Recognition of the gain and the increase in tax basis of the assets represents a tax accounting temporary difference. Entergy sold FitzPatrick on March 31, 2017. The removal of the contingencies regarding the sale of the plant and the receipt of NRC approval for the sale allowed Entergy to re-determine the plant’s tax basis. The re-determined basis resulted in a $44 million income tax benefit in the first quarter 2017.

In the second quarter 2017, Entergy changed the tax classification of legal entities that own Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants. The change in tax classification required Entergy to recognize the plants’ nuclear decommissioning liabilities for income tax purposes resulting in a tax accounting permanent difference that reduced income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, by $373 million. The accrual of the nuclear decommissioning liabilities also required Entergy to recognize a gain for income tax purposes, a portion of which resulted in an increase in tax basis of the assets. Recognition of the gain and the increase in tax basis of the assets represents a tax accounting temporary difference.

In the fourth quarter 2015, System Energy and Entergy Louisiana adopted a new method of accounting for income tax return purposes in which the companies’ nuclear decommissioning costs will be treated as production costs of electricity includable in cost of goods sold. The new method results in a reduction of taxable income of $1.2 billion for System Energy and $2.2 billion for Entergy Louisiana.

The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 was enacted in December 2015. The most significant provisions affecting Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries were a five-year extension of bonus depreciation and permanent extension of the research and experimentation tax credit. The effect of the bonus depreciation extension on 2015 increased Entergy’s tax net operating loss.

In the first quarter 2017, Entergy implemented ASU No. 2016-09, “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting.” Entergy will now prospectively recognize all income tax effects related to share-based payments through the income statement. In the first quarter 2017, stock option expirations, along with other stock compensation activity, resulted in the write-off of $11.5 million of deferred tax assets. Entergy’s stock-based compensation plans are discussed in Note 12 to the financial statements.

Entergy Corporation has in place a credit facility that has a borrowing capacity of $3.5 billion and expires in August ~~2021. Entergy Corporation also has~~2022. The facility permits the ~~ability to issue~~issuance of letters of credit against ~~50%~~$20 million of the total borrowing capacity of the credit facility. The commitment fee is currently 0.225% of the undrawn commitment amount. Commitment fees and interest rates on loans under the credit facility can fluctuate depending on the senior unsecured debt ratings of Entergy Corporation. The weighted average interest rate for the year ended December 31, ~~2016~~2017 was ~~2.23%~~2.55% on the drawn portion of the facility. Following is a summary of the borrowings outstanding and capacity available under the facility as of December 31, ~~2016.~~2017.

Entergy Corporation’s credit facility requires Entergy to maintain a consolidated debt ratio, as defined, of 65% or less of its total capitalization. Entergy is in compliance with this covenant. If Entergy fails to meet this ratio, or if Entergy Corporation or one of the Utility operating companies (except Entergy New Orleans) defaults on other indebtedness or is in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, an acceleration of the facility maturity date may occur.

Entergy Corporation has a commercial paper program with a Board-approved program limit of up to $~~1.5~~2 billion. AtAs of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy Corporation had ~~$344 million~~$1.467 billion of commercial paper outstanding. The weighted-average interest rate for the year ended December 31, ~~2016~~2017 was ~~1.13%~~1.49%.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each had credit facilities available as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 as follows:

In addition, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each entered into one or more uncommitted standby letter of credit facilities as a means to post collateral to support its obligations ~~related~~ to MISO. Following is a summary of the uncommitted standby letter of credit facilities as of December 31, ~~2016:~~2017:

The short-term borrowings of the Registrant Subsidiaries are limited to amounts authorized by the FERC. The current FERC-authorized limits are effective through October 31, ~~2017.~~2019. In addition to borrowings from commercial

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee has a credit facility guaranteed by Entergy Corporation with a borrowing capacity of ~~$100~~$145 million ~~which~~that expires in ~~January 2018.~~November 2020. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee does not have the ability

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee also ~~has~~had an uncommitted credit facility guaranteed by Entergy Corporation

See Note 17 to the financial statements for a discussion of the consolidation of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities (VIE). To finance the acquisition and ownership of nuclear fuel, the nuclear fuel company VIEs have credit facilities and three of the four VIEs also issue commercial paper, details of which follow as of December 31, ~~2016:~~2017:

The commitment fees on the credit facilities are ~~currently~~ 0.10% of the undrawn commitment amount for the Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy VIEs. Each credit facility requires the respective lessee of nuclear fuel (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, or Entergy Corporation as guarantor for System Energy) to maintain a consolidated debt ratio, as defined, of 70% or less of its total capitalization.

In accordance with regulatory treatment, interest on the nuclear fuel company variable interest entities’ credit facilities, commercial paper, and long-term notes payable is reported in fuel expense.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy each have obtained long-term financing authorizations from the FERC that extend through October ~~2017~~2019 for issuances by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entities.

Long-term debt for Entergy Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 consisted of:

The annual long-term debt maturities (excluding lease obligations and long-term DOE obligations) for debt outstanding as of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, for the next five years are as follows:

In November 2000, Entergy’s non-utility nuclear business purchased the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 power plants in a seller-financed transaction. As part of the purchase agreement with NYPA, Entergy recorded a liability representing the net present value of the payments Entergy would be liable to NYPA for each year that the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 power plants would run beyond their respective original NRC license expiration date. In October 2015, Entergy announced a planned shutdown of FitzPatrick at the end of its fuel cycle. As a result of the announcement, Entergy reduced this liability by $26.4 million pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement. In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy. As part of the trust transfer agreement, the original decommissioning agreements were amended, and the Entergy subsidiaries’ obligation to make additional license extension payments to NYPA was eliminated. In the third quarter 2016, Entergy removed the note payable of $35.1 million from the consolidated balance sheet.

Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy have obtained long-term financing authorizations from the FERC that extend through October ~~2017.~~2019. Entergy Arkansas has obtained long-term financing authorization from the APSC that extends through December 2018. Entergy New Orleans has also obtained long-term financing authorization from the City Council that extends through June ~~2018.~~2018, as the City Council has concurrent jurisdiction with the FERC over such issuances.

Pursuant to an agreement with certain creditors, Entergy Corporation has agreed to supply System Energy with sufficient capital to:

The annual long-term debt maturities (excluding lease obligations and long-term DOE obligations) for debt outstanding as of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, for the next five years are as follows:

In June 2010 the APSC issued a financing order authorizing the issuance of bonds to recover Entergy Arkansas’s January 2009 ice storm damage restoration costs, including carrying costs of $11.5 million and $4.6 million of up-front financing costs. In August 2010, Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Arkansas, issued $124.1 million of storm cost recovery bonds. The bonds have a coupon of 2.30%. Although the principal amount is not due until ~~the date given in the tables above,~~August 2021, Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding expects to make principal payments on the bonds over the next ~~four~~three years in the amount of ~~$13.8 million for 2017,~~ $14.1 million for 2018, $14.4 million for 2019, and $7.3 million for 2020. With the proceeds, Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding purchased from Entergy Arkansas the storm recovery property, which is the right to recover from customers through a storm recovery charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. The storm recovery property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Arkansas balance sheet. The creditors of Entergy Arkansas do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, including the storm recovery property, and the creditors of Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas has no payment obligations to Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding except to remit storm recovery charge collections.

In August 2011 the LPSC issued a financing order authorizing the issuance of bonds to recover Entergy Louisiana’s investment recovery costs associated with the canceled Little Gypsy repowering project. In September 2011, Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding I, L.L.C., a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Louisiana, issued $207.2 million of senior secured investment recovery bonds. The bonds have an interest

In May 2015 the City Council issued a financing order authorizing the issuance of securitization bonds to recover Entergy New Orleans’s Hurricane Isaac storm restoration costs of $31.8 million, including carrying costs, the costs of funding and replenishing the storm recovery reserve in the amount of $63.9 million, and approximately $3 million of up-front financing costs associated with the securitization. In July 2015, Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding I, L.L.C., a company wholly owned and consolidated by Entergy New Orleans, issued $98.7 million of storm cost recovery bonds. The bonds have a coupon of 2.67%. Although the principal amount is not due until ~~the date given in the tables above,~~June 2027, Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding expects to make principal payments on the bonds over the next five years in the amounts of ~~$10.6 million for 2017,~~ $11 million for 2018, $11.2 million for 2019, $11.6 million for 2020, ~~and~~ $11.9 million for ~~2021.~~

In April 2007 the PUCT issued a financing order authorizing the issuance of securitization bonds to recover $353 million of Entergy Texas’s Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs and up to $6 million of transaction costs, offset by $32 million of related deferred income tax benefits. In June 2007, Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding I, LLC, a company that is now wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $329.5 million of senior secured transition bonds (securitization bonds) as follows:

With the proceeds, Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a transition charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. The transition property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Texas balance sheet. The creditors of Entergy Texas do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding, including the transition property, and the creditors of Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Texas. Entergy Texas has no payment obligations to Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding except to remit transition charge collections.

In September 2009 the PUCT authorized the issuance of securitization bonds to recover $566.4 million of Entergy Texas’s Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav restoration costs, plus carrying costs and transaction costs, offset by insurance proceeds. In November 2009, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, LLC (Entergy Texas Restoration Funding), a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, issued $545.9 million of senior secured transition bonds (securitization bonds), as follows:

With the proceeds, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a transition charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. The transition property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Texas balance sheet. The creditors of Entergy Texas do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, including the transition property, and the creditors of Entergy Texas Restoration Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Texas. Entergy Texas has no payment obligations to Entergy Texas Restoration Funding except to remit transition charge collections.

The number of shares and units authorized and outstanding and dollar value of preferred stock, preferred membership interests, and non-controlling interest for Entergy Corporation subsidiaries as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are presented below. All series of the Utility preferred stock are redeemable at the option of the related company.

Entergy Corporation reissues treasury shares to meet the requirements of the Stock Plan for Outside Directors (Directors’ Plan), three Equity Ownership Plans of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, and certain other stock benefit plans. The Directors’ Plan awards to non-employee directors a portion of their compensation in the form of a fixed dollar value of shares of Entergy Corporation common stock.

In October 2010 the Board granted authority for a $500 million share repurchase program. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, $350 million of authority remains under the $500 million share repurchase program.

Dividends declared per common share were $3.50 in 2017, $3.42 in 2016, and $3.34 in ~~2015, and $3.32 in 2014.~~2015.

System Energy paid its parent, Entergy Corporation, distributions out of its common stock of $21 million in 2017 and $40 million in ~~2016~~2016.

Provisions within the articles of incorporation relating to preferred stock of each of Entergy Arkansas ~~Entergy Mississippi~~ and Entergy ~~New Orleans~~Mississippi could restrict the payment of cash dividends or other distributions on their common and preferred equity if such payment were to occur when, or result in, a ratio of common stock equity to total capitalization of 25% or less. Entergy Corporation received dividend payments and distributions from subsidiaries totaling $201 million in 2017, $165 million in 2016, and $615 million in ~~2015, and $893 million in 2014.~~

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) is included in the equity section of the balance sheets of Entergy and Entergy Louisiana. The following table presents changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) for Entergy for the year ended December 31, ~~2016~~2017 by component:

The following table presents changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) for Entergy for the year ended December 31, ~~2015~~2016 by component:

The following table presents changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) for Entergy Louisiana for the year ended December 31, ~~2016:~~2017:

The following table presents changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) for Entergy Louisiana for the year ended December 31, 2016:

Total reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (AOCI) for Entergy for the years ended December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

Total reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (AOCI) for Entergy Louisiana for the years ended December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, and tax proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, and governmental agencies in the ordinary course of business. While management is unable to predict the outcome of such proceedings, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition. Entergy discusses regulatory proceedings in Note 2 to the financial statements and discusses tax proceedings in Note 3 to the financial statements.

Entergy Louisiana has an agreement extending through the year 2031 to purchase energy generated by a hydroelectric facility known as the Vidalia project. Entergy Louisiana made payments under the contract of approximately $122.9 million in 2017, $158.7 million in 2016, and $146 million in ~~2015, and $152.8 million in 2014.~~2015. If the maximum percentage (94%) of the energy is made available to Entergy Louisiana, current production projections would require estimated payments of approximately $129 million in ~~2017,~~2018, and a total of ~~$1.81~~$1.68 billion for the years ~~2018~~2019 through 2031. Entergy Louisiana currently recovers the costs of the purchased energy through its fuel adjustment clause.

In an LPSC-approved settlement related to tax benefits from the tax treatment of the Vidalia contract, Entergy Louisiana agreed to credit rates by $11 million each year for up to 10 years, beginning in October 2002. In October 2011 the LPSC approved a settlement under which Entergy Louisiana agreed to provide credits to customers by crediting billings an additional $20.235 million per year for 15 years beginning January 2012. Entergy Louisiana recorded a regulatory charge and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect this obligation.

In March 2013, during a scheduled refueling outage at ANO 1, a contractor-owned and operated heavy-lifting apparatus collapsed while moving the generator stator out of the turbine building. The collapse resulted in the death of an ironworker and injuries to several other contract workers, caused ANO 2 to shut down, and damaged the ANO turbine building. The total cost of assessment, restoration of off-site power, site restoration, debris removal, and replacement of damaged property and equipment was approximately $95 million. Entergy Arkansas is pursuing its options for recovering damages that resulted from the stator drop, including its insurance coverage and legal action. During 2014, Entergy Arkansas collected $50 million from Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), a mutual insurance company that provides property damage coverage to the members’ nuclear generating plants. Litigation remains pending.

In addition, Entergy Arkansas incurred replacement power costs for ANO 2 power during its outage and incurred incremental replacement power costs for ANO 1 power because the outage extended beyond the originally-planned duration of the refueling outage. In February 2014 the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s request to exclude from the calculation of its revised energy cost rate $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs incurred in 2013 as a result of the ANO stator incident. The APSC authorized Entergy Arkansas to retain the $65.9 million in its deferred fuel balance with recovery to be reviewed in a later period after more information regarding various claims associated with the ANO stator incident is available. In July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed for a change in rates pursuant to its formula rate plan rider. In that proceeding, the APSC approved a settlement agreement agreed upon by the parties, including a provision that requires Entergy Arkansas to initiate a proceeding for the purpose of recovering funds currently withheld from rates and related to the stator incident, including the $65.9 million of deferred fuel and purchased energy costs previously noted, subject to certain timelines and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement.

Shortly after the stator incident, the NRC deployed an augmented inspection team to review the plant’s response. In July 2013 a second team of NRC inspectors visited ANO to evaluate certain items that were identified as requiring follow-up inspection to determine whether performance deficiencies existed. In March 2014 the NRC issued an inspection report on the follow-up inspection that discussed two preliminary findings, one that was preliminarily determined to be “red with high safety significance” for Unit 1 and one that was preliminarily determined to be “yellow with substantial safety significance” for Unit 2, with the NRC indicating further that these preliminary findings may warrant additional regulatory oversight. This report also noted that one additional item related to flood barrier effectiveness was still under review. In June 2014 the NRC classified both findings as “yellow with substantial safety significance.”

In March 2015, after several NRC inspections and regulatory conferences, the NRC issued a letter notifying Entergy of its decision to move ANO into the “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4, of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Placement into Column 4 requires significant additional NRC inspection activities at the ANO site, including a review of the site’s root cause evaluation associated with flood barrier effectiveness and stator issues, an assessment of the effectiveness of the site’s corrective action program, an additional design basis inspection, a safety culture assessment, and possibly other inspection activities consistent with the NRC’s Inspection Procedure. Entergy Arkansas incurred incremental costs of approximately $53 million in 2015 to prepare for the NRC inspection that began in early 2016. Excluding remediation and response costs that may result from the additional NRC inspection activities, Entergy Arkansas also incurred approximately $44 million in 2016 in support of NRC inspection activities and to implement Entergy Arkansas’s performance improvement initiatives developed in 2015. A lesser amount of incremental expense is expected to be ongoing annually after 2016, until ANO transitions out of Column 4.

The NRC completed the supplemental inspection required for ANO’s Column 4 designation in February 2016, and published its inspection report in June 2016. In its inspection report, the NRC concluded that the ANO site is being operated safely and that Entergy understands the depth and breadth of performance concerns associated with ANO’s performance decline. Also in June 2016, the NRC issued a confirmatory action letter to confirm the actions Entergy Arkansas has taken and will continue to take to improve performance at ANO. The NRC will verify the

In September 2015 the NRC placed Pilgrim in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone ~~column” (Column 4)~~column,” or Column 4, of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix due to its finding of continuing weaknesses in Pilgrim’s corrective action program that contributed to repeated unscheduled shutdowns and equipment failures. The preliminary estimate of direct costs of Pilgrim’s response to a planned NRC enhanced inspection ranges from $45 million to $60 million, of which ~~$28.6~~$50 million ~~was~~has been incurred ~~in 2016~~through the end of 2017 in operation and maintenance expense. The estimate does not include potential capital expenditures, which will be charged directly to expense when incurred, or other costs to address issues that may arise in the inspection.

Entergy determined in October 2015 that it would close Pilgrim no later than June 1, 2019 because of poor market conditions that led to reduced revenues, a poor market design that failed to properly compensate nuclear generators for the benefits they provide, and increased operational costs. The decision came after management’s extensive analysis of the economics and operating life of the plant following the NRC’s decision to place the plant in Column 4. Entergy determined in April 2016 that it intends to refuel Pilgrim in 2017 and then cease operations May 31, 2019. Pilgrim currently has approximately 677 MW of Capacity Supply Obligations in ISO New England through May 2019.

See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the impairment of the Pilgrim plant and related long-lived assets.

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense. Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants. Following the defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014. Management cannot predict the potential timing or magnitude of future spent fuel fee revisions that may occur.

Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. Beginning in November 2003 these subsidiaries have pursued litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. Following are details of final judgments recorded by Entergy in 2016 related to Entergy’s nuclear owner licensee subsidiaries’ litigation with the DOE.

In December 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $81 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick in the first round Indian Point 3/FitzPatrick damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the Indian Point 3 proceeds was a reduction to plant, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The Indian

In April 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $42 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round River Bend damages case. Entergy Louisiana received payment from the U.S. Treasury in August 2016. The effects of recording the final judgment in the third quarter 2016 were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The River Bend damages awarded included $17 million related to costs previously capitalized, $23 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $17 million, Entergy Louisiana recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy Louisiana reduced its River Bend plant asset balance by the remaining $14 million. In September 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a further judgment in the River Bend case in the amount of $5 million. Entergy Louisiana recorded a receivable for that amount, and subsequently received payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2017. The River Bend damages awarded included $2 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense and $3 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. In May 2017 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the first round River Bend damages case for $0.6 million, awarding certain cask loading costs that had not previously been adjudicated by the court.

In May 2016, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the DOE entered into a stipulation agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $19 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and against the DOE in the second round Vermont Yankee damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016. The effect of recording the proceeds was a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense and depreciation expense. The damages awarded included $15 million related to costs previously capitalized and $4 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $15 million, Entergy recorded $2 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. The remaining $13 million would have been recorded as a reduction to Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance, but was recorded as a reduction to other operation and maintenance expense because Vermont Yankee’s plant asset balance is fully impaired.

In June 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the amount of $49 million in favor of System Energy and against the DOE in the second round Grand Gulf damages case. System Energy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in August 2016. The effects of recording the judgment in the third quarter 2016 were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The amounts of Grand Gulf damages awarded related to System Energy’s 90% ownership of Grand Gulf included $16 million related to costs previously capitalized, $19 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $9 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $16 million, System Energy recorded $5 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. System Energy reduced its Grand Gulf plant asset balance by the remaining $11 million.

In July 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the amount of $31 million in favor of Entergy Arkansas and against the DOE in the second round ANO damages case. Entergy Arkansas received payment from the U.S. Treasury in October 2016. The effects of recording the judgment were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, and other operation and maintenance expense. The ANO damages awarded included $6 million related to costs previously capitalized, $19 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, $5 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense, and $1 million related to costs previously recorded as taxes other than income taxes.

In August 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $53 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round Waterford 3 damages case. Entergy Louisiana received payment from the U.S. Treasury in November 2016. The effects of recording the judgment were reductions to plant, nuclear fuel expense, other operation and maintenance expense, and depreciation expense. The Waterford 3 damages awarded included $41 million related to costs previously capitalized, $10 million related to costs previously recorded as nuclear fuel expense, and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $41 million, Entergy Louisiana recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense.

In September 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the Entergy Nuclear Palisades case in the amount of $14 million. Entergy Nuclear Palisades recorded a receivable for that amount, and subsequently received payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2017. The effects of recording the judgment were reductions to plant and other operation and maintenance expenses. The Palisades damages awarded included $11 million related to costs previously capitalized and $3 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense. Of the $11 million, Entergy recorded $1 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Palisades plant asset balance by the remaining $10 million. The Court previously issued a partial judgment in the case in the amount of $21 million, which was paid by the U.S. Treasury in October 2015.

In October 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the second round Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 case in the amount of $34 million. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 recorded a receivable for that amount, and subsequently received payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2017. The effects of recording the judgment were reductions to plant and other operation and maintenance expenses. The Indian Point 2 damages awarded included $14 million related to costs previously capitalized, $15 million related to costs previously recorded as other operation and maintenance expense, $3 million related to previously recorded decommissioning expense, and $2 million related to costs previously recorded as taxes other than income taxes. Of the $14 million, Entergy recorded $3 million as a reduction to previously-recorded depreciation expense. Entergy reduced its Indian Point 2 plant asset balance by the remaining $11 million.

Management cannot predict the timing or amount of any potential recoveries on other claims filed by Entergy subsidiaries, and cannot predict the timing of any eventual receipt from the DOE of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims damage awards.

The Price-Anderson Act requires that reactor licensees purchase insurance and participate in a secondary insurance pool that provides insurance coverage for the public in the event of a nuclear power plant accident. The costs of this insurance are borne by the nuclear power industry. Congress amended and renewed the Price-Anderson Act in 2005 for a term through 2025. The Price-Anderson Act requires nuclear power plants to show evidence of financial protection in the event of a nuclear accident. This protection must consist of two layers of coverage:

Currently, 102 nuclear reactors are participating in the Secondary Financial Protection program. Effective April 15, 2016 the NRC granted Vermont Yankee’s exemption request and it was allowed to withdraw from participation in this layer of financial protection. The Secondary Financial Protection program provides approximately $13 billion in secondary layer insurance coverage to compensate the public in the event of a nuclear power reactor accident. The Price-Anderson Act provides that all potential liability for a nuclear accident is limited to the amounts of insurance coverage available under the primary and secondary layers.

Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana each have two licensed reactors. System Energy has one licensed reactor (10% of Grand Gulf is owned by a non-affiliated company (Cooperative Energy) that would share on a pro-rata basis in any retrospective premium assessment to System Energy under the Price-Anderson Act). The Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors and the ownership of the shutdown Indian Point 1 reactor and Big Rock Point facility.

Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries are members of NEIL, a mutual insurance company that provides property damage coverage, including decontamination and premature decommissioning expense, to the members’ nuclear generating plants. The property damage insurance limits procured by Entergy for its Utility plants and Entergy Wholesale Commodity plants are in compliance with the financial protection requirements of the NRC.

~~As of December 31, 2016, the~~The Utility ~~plants~~plants’ (ANO 1 and 2, Grand Gulf, River Bend, and Waterford 3) ~~had~~ property damage insurance limits ~~as follows:~~are $1.5 billion per occurrence at each plant with an additional $100 million per occurrence that is shared among the plants. Property damage from ~~flood,~~ earthquake and volcanic eruption is excluded from the first $500 million in coverage for all Utility plants. Property damage from flood is excluded from the first $500 million in coverage at ANO 1 and 2 and Grand Gulf. Property damage from ~~earthquake and volcanic eruption~~flood is ~~excluded from~~included in the first $500 million for Waterford 3 and River Bend. Property damage from wind for all of the Utility nuclear plants includes a deductible of $10 million plus an additional 10% of the amount of the loss in ~~coverage for River Bend and Waterford 3.~~excess of $10 million, up to a total maximum deductible of $50 million.

~~As of December 31, 2016, the~~The Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ plants ~~(FitzPatrick, Pilgrim,~~(Pilgrim, Palisades, Indian Point, Vermont Yankee, and Big Rock Point) ~~had~~have property damage insurance limits as follows: Vermont Yankee - $50 million per occurrence; Big Rock Point - $500 million per occurrence; ~~FitzPatrick,~~ Pilgrim and Palisades - $1.115 billion per ~~occurrence (FitzPatrick and Pilgrim’s coverage for non-nuclear, non-radiological property damage is limited to $500 million per occurrence);~~occurrence; and Indian Point - ~~$1.5~~$1.6 billion per ~~occurrence (Indian~~occurrence. For losses that are considered non-nuclear in nature, the property damage insurance limit at Pilgrim, Palisades, and Indian Point ~~has~~is $500 million and at Vermont Yankee is $50 million. Property damage from wind and flood at Indian Point includes a deductible of $10 million plus an additional ~~coverage~~10% of ~~$100~~the amount of the loss in excess of $10 million, ~~per occurrence, which brings its total insurance~~up to ~~$1.6 billion).~~a maximum deductible of $50 million, but property damage from earthquake and volcanic eruption at Indian Point is excluded from the first $500 million. Property damage from wind at Pilgrim includes a deductible of $10 million plus an additional 10% of the amount of the loss in excess of $10 million, up to a maximum

In addition, Waterford 3 and Grand Gulf ~~and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants, with the exception of Vermont Yankee,~~ are also covered under NEIL’s Accidental Outage Coverage program. Due to Entergy’s gradual exit from the merchant/wholesale power business, Entergy no longer purchases Accidental Outage Coverage for its non-regulated, non-generation assets. Accidental outage coverage provides indemnification for the actual cost incurred in the event of an unplanned outage resulting from property damage covered under the NEIL Primary Property Insurance policy, subject to a deductible period. The indemnification for the actual cost incurred is based on market power prices at the time of the loss. For non-nuclear events, the maximum indemnity, under this policy, is limited to $327.6 million per occurrence. After the deductible period has passed, weekly indemnities for an unplanned outage, covered under NEIL’s Accidental Outage Coverage program, would be paid according to the amounts listed below:

Under the property damage and accidental outage insurance programs, all NEIL insured plants could be subject to assessments should losses exceed the accumulated funds available from NEIL. Effective April 1, ~~2016,~~2017, the maximum amounts of such possible assessments per occurrence were as follows:

NRC regulations provide that the proceeds of this insurance must be used, first, to render the reactor safe and stable, and second, to complete decontamination operations. Only after proceeds are dedicated for such use and regulatory approval is secured would any remaining proceeds be made available for the benefit of plant owners or their creditors.

In the event that one or more acts of terrorism causes property damage under one or more or all nuclear insurance policies issued by NEIL (including, but not limited to, those described above) within 12 months from the date the first property damage occurs, the maximum recovery under all such nuclear insurance policies shall be an aggregate ofnot exceeding $3.24 billion plus the additional amounts recovered for such losses from reinsurance, indemnity, and any other sources applicable to such losses.

Entergy’s ~~conventional~~non-nuclear property insurance program provides coverage on a system-wide basis for Entergy’s non-nuclear assets. The insurance program provides coverage up to $400 million ~~for all perils on a~~ per occurrence, “each and every loss” basis in excess of a $20 million self-insured retention with the exception of the ~~following perils:~~following: earthquake shock, flood, and ~~Named Windstorm (including~~named windstorm, including associated storm ~~surge).~~surge. For ~~the perils of~~ earthquake shock and flood, the insurance program provides coverage up to $400 million on an annual aggregate basis in excess of a $40 million self-insured ~~retention,~~retention. For named windstorm and ~~for the peril of a Named Windstorm (including~~ associated storm ~~surge),~~surge, the insurance program provides coverage up to $125 million on an annual aggregate basis in excess of a $40 million self-insured retention. The coverage provided by the insurance program for the Entergy New Orleans gas distribution system is limited to $50 million per occurrence and is subject to the same annual aggregate limits and retentions listed above for ~~the perils of~~ earthquake shock, flood, and ~~Named Windstorm (including~~named windstorm, including associated storm ~~surge).~~surge.

Covered property generally includes power plants, substations, facilities, inventories, and gas distribution-related properties. Excluded property generally includes transmission and distribution lines, poles, and ~~towers for~~towers. For substations valued at $5 million or less, coverage for named windstorm and associated storm surge is excluded. This coverage is in place for Entergy Corporation, the Registrant Subsidiaries, and certain other Entergy subsidiaries,

InPrior to June 1, 2017, Entergy purchased additional coverage for some of its non-regulated, non-generation assets in addition to the insurance procured via the conventional property insurance ~~program,~~program. The policy served to buy-down the conventional property insurance policy’s $20 million deductible and was placed on a scheduled location basis. Due to Entergy’s gradual exit from the merchant/wholesale power business, effective June 1, 2017, Entergy ~~has purchased~~no longer purchases this additional coverage ($20 million per occurrence) for some of its non-regulated, non-generation assets. This policy serves to buy-down the $20 million deductible and is placed on a scheduled location basis. The applicable deductibles are generally $100,000 to $250,000 for the locations scheduled in the policy, with the following exceptions: 1) locations where damage is caused by a Named Windstorm (including associated storm surge) and locations with values in excess of $20 million are subject to a $500,000 deductible; and 2) three scheduled locations at two nuclear sites are subject to a $2.5 million deductible, which coincides with the nuclear property insurance deductible at each of the respective nuclear sites.

The Registrant Subsidiaries and other Entergy subsidiaries are responding to various lawsuits in both state and federal courts and to other labor-related proceedings filed by current and former employees, recognized bargaining representatives, and third parties not selected for open positions or providing services directly or indirectly to one or more of the Registrant Subsidiaries and other Entergy subsidiaries. Generally, the amount of damages being sought is not specified in these proceedings. These actions include, but are not limited to, allegations of wrongful employment actions; wage disputes and other claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act or its state counterparts; claims of race, gender, age, and disability discrimination; disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements; unfair labor practice proceedings and other administrative proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board or concerning the National Labor Relations Act; claims of retaliation; claims of harassment and hostile work environment; and claims for or regarding benefits under various Entergy Corporation-sponsored plans. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries are responding to these lawsuits and proceedings and deny liability to the claimants. Management believes that loss exposure has been and will continue to be handled so that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material, in the aggregate, to the financial position, results of operation, or cash flows of Entergy or the Utility operating companies.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts, primarily by contractor employees who worked in the 1940-1980s timeframe, primarily against Entergy Texas, and to a lesser extent the other Utility operating companies, as premises owners of power plants, for damages caused by alleged exposure to asbestos. Many other defendants are named in these lawsuits as well. Currently, there are approximately 80200 lawsuits involving

System Energy has entered into agreements with Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans whereby they are obligated to purchase their respective entitlements of capacity and energy from System Energy’s interest in Grand Gulf, and to make payments that, together with other available funds, are adequate to cover System Energy’s operating expenses. System Energy would have to secure funds from other sources, including Entergy Corporation’s obligations under the Capital Funds Agreement, to cover any shortfalls from payments received from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under these agreements.

System Energy has agreed to sell all of its share of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans in accordance with specified percentages (Entergy Arkansas-36%, Entergy Louisiana-14%, Entergy Mississippi-33%, and Entergy New Orleans-17%) as ordered by the FERC. Charges under this agreement are paid in consideration for the purchasing companies’ respective entitlement to receive capacity and energy and are payable irrespective of the quantity of energy delivered. The agreement will remain in effect until terminated by the parties and the termination is approved by the FERC, most likely upon Grand Gulf’s retirement from service. In December 2016 the NRC granted the extension of Grand Gulf’s operating license to 2044. Monthly obligations are based on actual capacity and energy costs. The average monthly payments for ~~2016~~2017 under the agreement are approximately ~~$16.7~~$19.5 million for Entergy Arkansas, ~~$6.7~~$7.8 million for Entergy Louisiana, ~~$14.3~~$17 million for Entergy Mississippi, and ~~$8.1~~$9.4 million for Entergy New Orleans. See Note 2 to the financial statements for discussion of the complaint filed with the FERC against System Energy seeking a reduction in the return on equity component of the Unit Power Sales Agreement.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans are individually obligated to make payments or subordinated advances to System Energy in accordance with stated percentages (Entergy Arkansas-17.1%, Entergy Louisiana-26.9%, Entergy Mississippi-31.3%, and Entergy New Orleans-24.7%) in amounts that, when added to amounts received under the Unit Power Sales Agreement or otherwise, are adequate to cover all of System Energy’s operating expenses as defined, including an amount sufficient to amortize the cost of Grand Gulf 2 over 27 years (See Reallocation Agreement terms below) and expenses incurred in connection with a permanent shutdown of Grand Gulf. System Energy has assigned its rights to payments and advances to certain creditors as security for certain obligations. Since commercial operation of Grand Gulf began, payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement have exceeded the amounts payable under the Availability Agreement. Accordingly, no payments under the Availability Agreement have ever been required. If Entergy Arkansas or Entergy Mississippi fails to make its Unit Power Sales Agreement payments, and System Energy is unable to obtain funds from other sources, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans could become subject to claims or demands by System Energy or its creditors for payments or advances under the Availability Agreement (or the assignments thereof) equal to the difference between their required Unit Power Sales Agreement payments and their required Availability Agreement payments.

System Energy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans entered into the Reallocation Agreement relating to the sale of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf and the related costs, in which Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans agreed to assume all of Entergy Arkansas’s

Accounting standards require companies to record liabilities for all legal obligations associated with the retirement of long-lived assets that result from the normal operation of the assets. For Entergy, substantially all of its asset retirement obligations consist of its liability for decommissioning its nuclear power plants. In addition, an insignificant amount of removal costs associated with non-nuclear power plants is also included in the decommissioning line item on the balance sheets.

These liabilities are recorded at their fair values (which are the present values of the estimated future cash outflows) in the period in which they are incurred, with an accompanying addition to the recorded cost of the long-lived asset. The asset retirement obligation is accreted each year through a charge to expense, to reflect the time value of money for this present value obligation. The accretion will continue through the completion of the asset retirement activity. The amounts added to the carrying amounts of the long-lived assets will be depreciated over the useful lives of the assets. The application of accounting standards related to asset retirement obligations is earnings neutral to the rate-regulated business of the Registrant Subsidiaries.

In accordance with ratemaking treatment and as required by regulatory accounting standards, the depreciation provisions for the Registrant Subsidiaries include a component for removal costs that are not asset retirement obligations under accounting standards. In accordance with regulatory accounting principles, the Registrant Subsidiaries have recorded regulatory assets (liabilities) in the following amounts to reflect their estimates of the difference between estimated incurred removal costs and estimated removal costs recovered in rates:

The cumulative decommissioning and retirement cost liabilities and expenses recorded in ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 by Entergy were as follows:

Liabilities as
of December 31,
2014
Liabilities Incurred

Accretion

Change in
Cash Flow
Estimate

Spending

Liabilities as of December 31,
2015
(In Millions)
Utility:
Entergy Arkansas
$818.4

$3.5
(c)
$50.4

$—

$—

$872.3
Entergy Louisiana
$950.3

$1.9
(c)
$51.0

$24.7

$—

$1,027.9
Entergy Mississippi
$6.8

$1.1
(c)
$0.4

$—

$—

$8.3
Entergy New Orleans
$2.5

$—

$0.2

$—

$—

$2.7
Entergy Texas
$4.6

$1.4
(c)
$0.3

($0.2 )
$—

$6.1
System Energy
$757.9

$—

$48.0

($2.5 )
$—

$803.4
Entergy Wholesale Commodities:

Big Rock Point
$27.8

$—

$2.2

$—

($2.0 )
$28.0
Indian Point 1
$188.9

$—

$16.3

$—

($7.3 )
$197.9
Indian Point 2
$359.7

$—

$30.4

$—

$—

$390.1
Palisades
$352.0

$—

$25.2

($35.2 )
$—

$342.0
Pilgrim
$383.1

$—

$33.3

$134.8

$—

$551.2
Vermont Yankee
$606.3

$—

$46.1

$—

($92.4 )
$560.0
Other (c)
$—

$—

$0.3

$—

$—

$0.3

Entergy periodically reviews and updates estimated decommissioning costs. The actual decommissioning costs may vary from the estimates because of the timing of plant decommissioning, regulatory requirements, changes in technology, and increased costs of labor, materials, and equipment. As described below, during ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, Entergy updated decommissioning cost estimates for certain nuclear power plants.

In the ~~fourth~~second quarter 2015, Entergy Louisiana recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liability for Waterford 3 as a result of a revised decommissioning cost study. The revised estimate resulted in a $24.9 million increase in its decommissioning cost liability, along with a corresponding increase in the related asset retirement cost asset that will be depreciated over the remaining life of the unit.

In August 2013 the Board approved a plan to close and decommission Vermont Yankee at the end of 2014. As a result of the settlement agreement entered into by Entergy and the state of Vermont, Entergy reassessed its assumptions regarding the timing of cash flows. Entergy Vermont Yankee provided to the Vermont parties, in 2014, a site assessment study of the costs and tasks of radiological decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel management, and site restoration for Vermont Yankee. Entergy Vermont Yankee filed its Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) for Vermont Yankee with the NRC in December 2014. As part of the development of the site assessment study and PSDAR, Entergy obtained a revised decommissioning cost study in the third quarter 2014. The revised estimate, along with reassessment of the assumptions regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows, resulted in a $101.6 million increase in the decommissioning cost liability and a corresponding impairment charge, recorded in September 2014.

Entergy expects that amounts available in Vermont Yankee’s decommissioning trust fund, including expected earnings, together with ~~the~~borrowings under its credit ~~facilities entered into in January 2015~~facility that are expected to be repaid with recoveries from DOE litigation related to spent fuel storage, and the site restoration trust, will be sufficient to cover Vermont Yankee’s expected costs of decommissioning, spent fuel management costs, and site restoration. See Note 4 to the financial statements for discussion of the credit facility and Note 16 to the financial statements for discussion of the decommissioning trust fund. In June 2015 the NRC staff issued an exemption

In the fourth quarter 2016, Entergy Wholesale Commodities recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liability for Palisades as a result of a revised decommissioning cost study. The revised estimate resulted in a $129 million increase in the decommissioning cost liability, along with a corresponding increase in the related asset retirement cost asset. The increase in the estimated decommissioning cost liability resulted from the change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows due to the decision to cease operations of the plant on October 1, 2018, subject to regulatory approval. The asset retirement cost asset was included in the Palisades carrying value that was written down to fair value in the fourth quarter 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the impairment of the value and planned shutdown of the Palisades plant.

For the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants purchased in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust funds and the decommissioning liabilities. NYPA and Entergy subsidiaries executed decommissioning agreements, which specified their decommissioning obligations. NYPA had the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume each of the decommissioning liabilities provided that it assigned the corresponding decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to the Entergy subsidiaries. Under the original agreements, if the decommissioning liabilities were retained by NYPA, the Entergy subsidiaries would perform the decommissioning of

In the third quarter 2015, Entergy Wholesale Commodities recorded a revision to the contract asset for the FitzPatrick plant. Due to a change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows, the result was a write down of the contract asset from $335 million to $131 million, for a charge of $204 million.

In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy. As a result of the agreement with NYPA, in the third quarter 2016 Entergy removed the contract asset from its balance sheet, and recorded receivables for the beneficial interests in the decommissioning trust funds and asset retirement obligations for the decommissioning liabilities. The transaction was contingent upon receiving approval from the NRC, which was received in January 2017. The decommissioning trust funds for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants were transferred to Entergy by NYPA in January 2017. In March 2017, Entergy sold the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon, and as part of the transaction, the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund, along with the decommissioning obligation for that plant, was transferred to Exelon. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the sale of FitzPatrick.

In the fourth quarter 2016, Entergy Wholesale Commodities recorded a revision to its estimated decommissioning cost liabilities for Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 as a result of revised decommissioning cost studies. The revised estimates resulted in a $392 million increase in the decommissioning cost liabilities, along with a corresponding increase in the related asset retirement cost assets. The increase in the estimated decommissioning cost liabilities resulted from the change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows due to the decision to cease operations of the Indian Point 2 plant no later than April 2020 and the Indian Point 3 plant no later than April 2021. The asset retirement cost assets were included in the carrying value that was written down to fair value in the fourth quarter 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the impairment of the value and planned shutdown of Indian Point Energy Center.

As the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants individually ~~transition to~~approach and begin decommissioning, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners will submit filings with the NRC for planned shutdown activities. These filings with the NRC will determine whether any other financial assurance may be required. The plants’ owners are required to provide the NRC with a biennial report (annually for units that have shut down or will shut down within five years), based on values as of December 31, addressing the owners’ ability to meet the NRC minimum funding levels. Depending on the value of the trust funds, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners may be required to take steps, such as providing financial guarantees through letters of credit or parent company guarantees or making additional contributions to the trusts, which could be significant, to ensure that the trusts are adequately funded and that NRC minimum funding requirements are met.

Entergy maintains decommissioning trust funds that are committed to meeting its obligations for the costs of decommissioning the nuclear power plants. The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds and the related asset retirement obligation regulatory assets (liabilities) of Entergy as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

As a result of the agreement with NYPA discussed above, in the third quarter 2016, Entergy removed the contract asset from its balance sheet, and recorded receivables of $1.5 billion for the beneficial interests in the decommissioning trust funds for Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick. At December 31, 2016, the fair values of the

In June 2010 the EPA issued a proposed rule on coal combustion residuals (CCRs) that contained two primary regulatory options: (1) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or received (including stored) in surface impoundments as so-called “special wastes” under the hazardous waste program of RCRA Subtitle C; or (2) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments as non-hazardous wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA. Under both options, CCRs that are beneficially reused in certain processes would remain excluded from hazardous waste regulation. In April 2015 the EPA published the final CCR rule with the material being regulated under the second scenario presented above - as non-hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA Subtitle D. The final regulations create new compliance requirements including modified storage, new notification and reporting practices, product disposal considerations, and CCR unit closure criteria. Entergy believes that on-site disposal options will be available at its facilities, to the extent needed for CCR that cannot be transferred for beneficial reuse. In December 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) was signed into law, which authorizes states to regulate coal ash rather than leaving primary enforcement to citizen suit actions. States may submit to the EPA proposals for permit programs. In September 2017 the EPA agreed to reconsider certain provisions of the CCR rule in light of the WIIN Act. The EPA has not yet initiated a new round of rulemaking and has not extended the existing mid-October 2017 groundwater monitoring deadline. Entergy met the existing monitoring deadline, is monitoring state agency actions, and will participate in the regulatory development process.

As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy had capital leases and non-cancelable operating leases for equipment, buildings, vehicles, and fuel storage facilities with minimum lease payments as follows (excluding power purchase agreement operating leases, nuclear fuel leases, and the Grand Gulf ~~and Waterford 3~~ sale and leaseback ~~transactions,~~transaction, all of which are discussed elsewhere):

Total rental expenses for all leases (excluding power purchase agreement operating leases, nuclear fuel leases, and the Grand Gulf and Waterford 3 sale and leaseback transactions) amounted to $53.1 million in 2017, $44.4 million in 2016, and $63.9 million in ~~2015, and $59 million in 2014.~~2015.

As of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 the Registrant Subsidiaries had ~~a capital lease and~~ non-cancelable operating leases for equipment, buildings, vehicles, and fuel storage facilities with minimum lease payments as follows (excluding power purchase agreement operating leases, nuclear fuel leases, and the Grand Gulf lease obligation, all of which are discussed elsewhere):

As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy Texas had a power purchase agreement that is accounted for as an operating lease under the accounting standards. The lease payments are recovered in fuel expense in accordance with regulatory treatment. The minimum lease payments under the power purchase agreement are as follows:

In 1989, in three separate but substantially identical transactions, Entergy Louisiana sold and leased back undivided interests in Waterford 3 for the aggregate sum of $353.6 million. The leases were scheduled to expire in July 2017. Entergy Louisiana iswas required to report the sale-leaseback as a financing transaction in its financial statements.

In December 2015, Entergy Louisiana agreed to purchase the undivided interests in Waterford 3 that were previously being leased. The purchase was accomplished in a two-step transaction in which Entergy Louisiana first

In March 2016, Entergy Louisiana completed the first step in the two-step transaction by acquiring the equity participant’s beneficial interest in the leased assets. Entergy Louisiana paid $60 million in cash and $52 million through the issuance of a non-interest bearing collateral trust mortgage note, payable in installments through July 2017. Entergy Louisiana continued to make payments on the lessor debt that remained outstanding and which matured in January 2017. The combination of payments on the $52 million collateral trust mortgage note issued and the debt service on the lessor debt iswas equal in timing and amount to the remaining lease payments due from the closing of the transaction through the end of the lease term in July 2017.

Throughout the term of the lease, Entergy Louisiana had accrued a liability for the amount it expected to pay to retain the use of the undivided interests in Waterford 3 at the end of the lease term. Since the sale-leaseback transaction was accounted for as a financing transaction, the accrual of this liability was accounted for as additional interest expense. As of December 2015, the balance of this liability was $62.7 million. Upon entering into the agreement to purchase the equity participant’s beneficial interest in the undivided interests, Entergy Louisiana reduced the balance of the

As of December 31, 2016, Entergy Louisiana, in connection with the Waterford 3 lease obligation, had a future minimum lease payment (reflecting an interest rate of 8.09%) of $57.5 million, including $2.3 million in interest, due January 2017 that iswas recorded as long-term debt.

In February 2017 the leases were terminated and the leased assets were conveyed to Entergy Louisiana.

In 1988, in two separate but substantially identical transactions, System Energy sold and leased back undivided ownership interests in Grand Gulf for the aggregate sum of $500 million. The initial term of the leases expired in July 2015. System Energy renewed the leases for fair market value with renewal terms expiring in July 2036. At the end of the new lease renewal terms, System Energy has the option to repurchase the leased interests in Grand Gulf or renew the leases at fair market value. In the event that System Energy does not renew or purchase the interests, System Energy would surrender such interests and their associated entitlement of Grand Gulf’s capacity and energy.

System Energy is required to report the sale-leaseback as a financing transaction in its financial statements. For financial reporting purposes, System Energy expenses the interest portion of the lease obligation and the plant depreciation. However, operating revenues include the recovery of the lease payments because the transactions are accounted for as a sale and leaseback for ratemaking purposes. Consistent with a recommendation contained in a FERC audit report, System Energy initially recorded as a net regulatory asset the difference between the recovery of the lease payments and the amounts expensed for interest and depreciation and continues to record this difference as a regulatory asset or liability on an ongoing basis, resulting in a zero net balance for the regulatory asset at the end of the lease term. The amount was a net regulatory liability of $55.6 million ~~and $55.6 million~~ as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015, respectively.~~2016.

As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, System Energy, in connection with the Grand Gulf sale and leaseback transactions, had future minimum lease payments (reflecting an implicit rate of 5.13%) that are recorded as long-term debt, as follows:

Entergy has ~~nine~~eight qualified pension plans covering substantially all employees. The ~~“Entergy~~Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan for Non-Bargaining Employees~~” “Entergy~~ (Non-Bargaining Plan I), the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan for Bargaining Employees~~” “Entergy~~ (Bargaining Plan I),the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan II for Non-Bargaining Employees~~” “Entergy~~ (Non-Bargaining Plan II), the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan II for Bargaining Employees,~~” “Entergy~~ the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan III,~~” “Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan IV for Non-Bargaining Employees,”~~ and ~~“Entergy~~the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan IV for Bargaining ~~Employees”~~Employees are non-contributory final average pay plans and provide pension benefits that are based on employees’ credited service and compensation during employment. Effective as of the close of business on December 31, 2016, the Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan IV for Non-Bargaining Employees (Non-Bargaining Plan IV) was merged with and into Non-Bargaining Plan II. At the ~~Entergy Corporation Retirement~~close of business on December 31, 2016, the liabilities for the accrued benefits and the assets attributable to such liabilities of all participants in Non-Bargaining Plan ~~II for~~IV were assumed by and transferred to Non-Bargaining ~~Employees.~~Plan II. There iswas no loss of vesting or benefit options or reduction of accrued benefits to affected participants as a result of this plan merger. Non-bargaining employees whose most recent date of hire is after June 30, 2014 participate in the ~~“Entergy~~Entergy Corporation Cash Balance Plan for Non-Bargaining ~~Employees.”~~Employees (Non-Bargaining Cash Balance Plan). Certain bargaining employees hired or rehired after June 30, 2014, or such later date provided for in their applicable collective bargaining agreements, participate in the ~~“Entergy~~Entergy Corporation Cash Balance Plan for Bargaining ~~Employees.”~~Employees (Bargaining Cash Balance Plan). The Registrant Subsidiaries participate in these four plans: ~~“Entergy Corporation Retirement~~Non-Bargaining Plan ~~for~~I, Bargaining Plan I, Non-Bargaining ~~Employees,” “Entergy Corporation Retirement Plan for Bargaining Employees,” “Entergy Corporation~~ Cash Balance Plan, ~~for Non-Bargaining Employees,”~~ and ~~“Entergy~~Bargaining Cash Balance ~~Plan for Bargaining Employees.”~~Plan.

The assets of the ~~seven~~six final average pay qualified pension plans are held in a master trust established by Entergy, and the assets of the two cash balance pension plans are held in a second master trust established by Entergy. Each pension plan has an undivided beneficial interest in each of the investment accounts in its respective master trust that is maintained by a trustee. Use of the master trusts permits the commingling of the trust assets of the pension plans of Entergy Corporation and its Registrant Subsidiaries for investment and administrative purposes. Although assets in the master trusts are commingled, the trustee maintains supporting records for the purpose of allocating the trust level equity in net earnings (loss) and the administrative expenses of the investment accounts in each trust to the various participating pension plans in that particular trust. The fair value of the trusts’ assets is determined by the trustee and certain investment managers. For each trust, the trustee calculates a daily earnings factor, including realized and

Within each pension plan, the record of each Registrant Subsidiary’s beneficial interest in the plan assets is maintained by the plan’s actuary and is updated quarterly. Assets for each Registrant Subsidiary are increased for investment net income and contributions, and are decreased for benefit payments. A plan’s investment net income/loss (i.e. interest and dividends, realized and unrealized gains and losses and expenses) is allocated to the Registrant Subsidiaries participating in that plan based on the value of assets for each Registrant Subsidiary at the beginning of the quarter adjusted for contributions and benefit payments made during the quarter.

Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries fund pension plans in an amount not less than the minimum required contribution under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The assets of the plans include common and preferred stocks, fixed-income securities, interest in a money market fund, and insurance contracts. The Registrant Subsidiaries’ pension costs are recovered from customers as a component of cost of service in each of their respective jurisdictions.

Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries’ total 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 qualified pension costs and amounts recognized as a regulatory asset and/or other comprehensive income, including amounts capitalized, included the following components:

The Registrant Subsidiaries’ total 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 qualified pension costs and amounts recognized as a regulatory asset and/or other comprehensive income, including amounts capitalized, for their employees included the following components:

Qualified pension obligations, plan assets, funded status, amounts recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for Entergy Corporation and its Subsidiaries as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

Qualified pension obligations, plan assets, funded status, amounts recognized in the Balance Sheets for the Registrant Subsidiaries as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

The accumulated benefit obligation for Entergy’s qualified pension plans was ~~$6.7~~$7.4 billion and ~~$6.3~~$6.7 billion at December 31, 2017 and 2016, ~~and 2015,~~ respectively.

The qualified pension accumulated benefit obligation for each of the Registrant Subsidiaries for their employees as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 was as follows:

Entergy also currently offers retiree medical, dental, vision, and life insurance benefits (other postretirement benefits) for eligible retired employees. Employees who commenced employment before July 1, 2014 and who satisfy certain eligibility requirements (including retiring from Entergy after a certain age and/or years of service with Entergy and immediately commencing their Entergy pension benefit), may become eligible for other postretirement benefits.

Entergy uses a December 31 measurement date for its postretirement benefit plans.

Effective January 1, 1993, Entergy adopted an accounting standard requiring a change from a cash method to an accrual method of accounting for postretirement benefits other than pensions. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas have received regulatory approval to recover accrued other postretirement benefit costs through rates. The LPSC ordered Entergy Louisiana to continue the use of the pay-as-you-go method for ratemaking purposes for postretirement benefits other than pensions. However, the LPSC retains the flexibility to examine individual companies’ accounting for other postretirement benefits to determine if special exceptions to this order are warranted. Pursuant to regulatory directives, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy contribute the other postretirement benefit costs collected in rates into external trusts. System Energy is funding, on behalf of Entergy Operations, other postretirement benefits associated with Grand Gulf.

Trust assets contributed by participating Registrant Subsidiaries are in master trusts, established by Entergy Corporation and maintained by a trustee. Each participating Registrant Subsidiary holds a beneficial interest in the trusts’ assets. The assets in the master trusts are commingled for investment and administrative purposes. Although assets are commingled, supporting records are maintained for the purpose of allocating the beneficial interest in net earnings/(losses) and the administrative expenses of the investment accounts to the various participating plans and participating Registrant Subsidiaries. Beneficial interest in an investment account’s net income/(loss) is comprised of interest and dividends, realized and unrealized gains and losses, and expenses. Beneficial interest from these investments is allocated to the plans and participating Registrant Subsidiary based on their portion of net assets in the pooled accounts.

Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ total 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 other postretirement benefit costs, including amounts capitalized and amounts recognized as a regulatory asset and/or other comprehensive income, included the following components:

Total 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 other postretirement benefit costs of the Registrant Subsidiaries, including amounts capitalized and deferred, for their employees included the following components:

Other postretirement benefit obligations, plan assets, funded status, and amounts not yet recognized and recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheets of Entergy Corporation and its Subsidiaries as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

Other postretirement benefit obligations, plan assets, funded status, and amounts not yet recognized and recognized in the Balance Sheets of the Registrant Subsidiaries as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

Entergy also sponsors non-qualified, non-contributory defined benefit pension plans that provide benefits to certain key employees. Entergy recognized net periodic pension cost related to these plans of $37.6 million in 2017, $24.9 million in 2016, and $22.8 million in ~~2015,~~2015. In 2017, 2016, and ~~$32.4 million in 2014. In 2016,~~ 2015 ~~and 2014~~ Entergy recognized $20.3 million, $8.1 million, ~~$5.1 million,~~ and ~~$15.1~~$5.1 million, respectively in settlement charges related to the payment of lump sum benefits out of the plan that is included in the non-qualified pension plan cost above. The projected benefit obligation was ~~$169.3~~$162.3 million and ~~$157.3~~$169.3 million as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, respectively. The accumulated benefit obligation was ~~$151~~$144.7 million and ~~$137.6~~$151.0 million as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, respectively.

Entergy’s non-qualified, non-current pension liability at December 31, 2017 and 2016 ~~and 2015~~ was ~~$137.6~~$136 million and ~~$136.1~~$137.6 million, respectively; and its current liability was ~~$31.7~~$26.4 million and ~~$21.2~~$31.7 million, respectively. The unamortized prior service cost and net loss are recognized in regulatory assets ($~~59.8~~55.2 million at December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~$58.8~~$59.8 million at December 31, ~~2015)~~2016) and accumulated other comprehensive income before taxes ($~~31.6~~35.9 million at December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~$23.5~~$31.6 million at December 31, ~~2015)~~2016).

The following Registrant Subsidiaries participate in Entergy’s non-qualified, non-contributory defined benefit pension plans that provide benefits to certain key employees. The net periodic pension cost for their employees for the non-qualified plans for 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, was as follows:

Included in the 2017 net periodic pension cost above are settlement charges of $269 thousand for Entergy Arkansas related to the lump sum benefits paid out of the plan. Included in the 2016 net periodic pension cost above are settlement charges of $1.4 million and $1 thousand for Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi, respectively, related to the lump sum benefits paid out of the plan. Included in the 2015 net periodic pension cost above are settlement charges of $108 thousand and $2 thousand for Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Mississippi, respectively, related to the lump sum benefits paid out of the plan. Included in the 2014 net periodic pension cost above are settlement charges of $337 thousand and $16 thousand for Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Texas, respectively, related to the lump sum benefits paid out of the plan.

The projected benefit obligation for their employees for the non-qualified plans as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 was as follows:

The accumulated benefit obligation for their employees for the non-qualified plans as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 was as follows:

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana reclassified the following costs out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (before taxes and including amounts capitalized) as of December 31, ~~2016:~~2017:

Entergy and Entergy Louisiana reclassified the following costs out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (before taxes and including amounts capitalized) as of December 31, ~~2015:~~2016:

Accounting standards require an employer to recognize in its balance sheet the funded status of its benefit plans. This is measured as the difference between plan assets at fair value and the benefit obligation. Entergy uses a December 31 measurement date for its pension and other postretirement plans. Employers are to record previously unrecognized gains and losses, prior service costs, and any remaining transition asset or obligation (that resulted from adopting prior pension and other postretirement benefits accounting standards) as comprehensive income and/or as a regulatory asset reflective of the recovery mechanism for pension and other postretirement benefit costs in the Registrant Subsidiaries’ respective regulatory jurisdictions. For the portion of Entergy Louisiana that is not regulated, the unrecognized prior service cost, gains and losses, and transition asset/obligation for its pension and other postretirement

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

The Plan Administrator’s trust asset investment strategy is to invest the assets in a manner whereby long-term earnings on the assets (plus cash contributions) provide adequate funding for retiree benefit payments. The mix of assets is based on an optimization study that identifies asset allocation targets in order to achieve the maximum return for an acceptable level of risk, while minimizing the expected contributions and pension and postretirement expense.

In the optimization studies, the Plan Administrator formulates assumptions about characteristics, such as expected asset class investment returns, volatility (risk), and correlation coefficients among the various asset classes. The future market assumptions used in the optimization study are determined by examining historical market characteristics of the various asset classes and making adjustments to reflect future conditions expected to prevail over the study period.

The target asset allocation for pension adjusts dynamically based on the pension plans’ funded status. The current targets are shown below. The expectation is that the allocation to fixed income securities will increase as the pension plans’ funded status increases. The following ranges were established to produce an acceptable, economically efficient plan to manage around the targets.

~~The~~For postretirement assets the target and range asset ~~allocation for postretirement assets reflects~~allocations (as shown below) reflect recommendations made in the latest optimization study. The target asset allocations for postretirement assets adjust dynamically based on the funded status of each sub-account within each trust. The current weighted average targets shown below represent the aggregate of all targets for all sub-accounts within all trusts.

Entergy’s qualified pension and postretirement weighted-average asset allocations by asset category at December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 and the target asset allocation and ranges for 2017 are as follows:

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

The expected long-term rate of return for the qualified pension plans’ assets is based primarily on the geometric average of the historical annual performance of a representative portfolio weighted by the target asset allocation defined in the table above, along with other indications of expected return on assets. The time period reflected is a long dated period spanning several decades.

The expected long-term rate of return for the non-taxable postretirement trust assets is determined using the same methodology described above for pension assets, but the aggregate asset allocation specific to the non-taxable postretirement assets is used.

For the taxable postretirement trust assets, the investment allocation includes tax-exempt fixed income securities. This asset allocation, in combination with the same methodology employed to determine the expected return for other ~~trust~~postretirement assets (as described above), and with a modification to reflect applicable taxes, is used to produce the expected long-term rate of return for taxable postretirement trust assets.

Entergy’s investment guidelines mandate the avoidance of risk concentrations. Types of concentrations specified to be avoided include, but are not limited to, investment concentrations in a single entity, type of industry, foreign country, geographic area and individual security issuance. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, all investment managers and assets were materially in compliance with the approved investment guidelines, therefore there were no significant concentrations (defined as greater than 10 percent of plan assets) of credit risk in Entergy’s pension and other postretirement benefit plan assets.

Accounting standards provide the framework for measuring fair value. That framework provides a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements).

Assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The following tables set forth by level within the fair value hierarchy, measured at fair value on a recurring basis at December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, and December 31, ~~2015,~~2016, a summary of the investments held in the master trusts for Entergy’s qualified pension and other postretirement plans in which the Registrant Subsidiaries participate.

Based upon the assumptions used to measure Entergy’s qualified pension and other postretirement benefit obligations at December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, and including pension and other postretirement benefits attributable to estimated future employee service, Entergy expects that benefits to be paid and the Medicare Part D subsidies to be received over the next ten years for Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries will be as follows:

Based upon the same assumptions, Entergy expects that benefits to be paid and the Medicare Part D subsidies to be received over the next ten years for the Registrant Subsidiaries for their employees will be as follows:

Entergy currently expects to contribute approximately ~~$408.6~~$352.1 million to its qualified pension plans and approximately ~~$53.1~~$52.3 million to other postretirement plans in ~~2017.~~2018. The expected ~~2017~~2018 pension and other postretirement plan contributions of the Registrant Subsidiaries for their employees are shown below. The ~~2017~~2018 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, ~~2017~~2018 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, ~~2017.~~2018.

The Registrant Subsidiaries expect to contribute approximately the following to the qualified pension and other postretirement plans for their employees in ~~2017:~~2018:

The significant actuarial assumptions used in determining the pension PBO and the other postretirement benefit APBO as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 were as follows:

The significant actuarial assumptions used in determining the net periodic pension and other postretirement benefit costs for 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 were as follows:

In 2016, Entergy refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of qualified pension, other postretirement, and non-qualified pension costs. Under the refined approach, instead of using the weighted-average obligation discount rates at the beginning of the year, 2016 service cost and interest costs’ expected cash flows were discounted by the applicable spot rates. The refinement in approach was a change in accounting estimate and, accordingly, the effect was reflected prospectively. The measurement of the benefit obligation was not affected.

With respect to the mortality assumptions, Entergy used the RP-2014 Employee and Healthy Annuitant Tables (adjusted to base year 2006) with a fully generational ~~MP-2016~~MP-2017 projection scale, in determining its December 31, ~~2016~~2017 pension plans’ PBOs and other postretirement benefit APBO. Entergy used the RP-2014 Employee and Healthy Annuitant Tables (adjusted to base year 2006) with a fully generational ~~MP-2015~~MP-2016 projection scale, in determining its December 31, ~~2015~~2016 pension plans’ PBOs and other postretirement benefit APBO.

Entergy’s health care cost trend is affected by both medical cost inflation, and with respect to capped costs, the effects of general inflation. A one percentage point change in Entergy’s assumed health care cost trend rate for ~~2016~~2017 would have the following effects:

The Registrant Subsidiaries’ health care cost trend is affected by both medical cost inflation, and with respect to capped costs, the effects of general inflation. A one percentage point change in the assumed health care cost trend rate for ~~2016~~2017 would have the following effects for the Registrant Subsidiaries for their employees:

Entergy sponsors the Savings Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (System Savings Plan). The System Savings Plan is a defined contribution plan covering eligible employees of Entergy and certain of its subsidiaries. The participating ~~employing~~ Entergy subsidiary makes matching contributions to the System Savings Plan for all eligible participating employees in an amount equal to either 70% or 100% of the participants’ basic contributions, up to 6% of their eligible earnings per pay period. The matching contribution is allocated to investments as directed by the employee.

Entergy also sponsors the Savings Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries IV (established in March 2002), the Savings Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries VI (established in April 2007), and the Savings Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries VII (established in April 2007) to which matching contributions are also made. The plans are defined contribution plans that cover eligible employees, as defined by each plan, of Entergy and certain of its subsidiaries.

Entergy’s subsidiaries’ contributions to defined contribution plans collectively were $49.1 million in 2017, $47 million in 2016, and $44.4 million in ~~2015, and $43.3 million in 2014.~~2015. The majority of the contributions were to the System Savings Plan.

The Registrant Subsidiaries’ 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 contributions to defined contribution plans for their employees were as follows:

Entergy grants stock options, restricted stock, performance units, and restricted stock unit awards to key employees of the Entergy subsidiaries under its Equity Ownership Plans which are shareholder-approved stock-based compensation plans. The Equity Ownership Plan, as restated in February 2003, expired December 31, 2016. Effective January 1, 2007, Entergy’s shareholders approved the 2007 Equity Ownership and Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan (2007 Plan). The maximum aggregate number of common shares that were available for issuance from the 2007 Plan for stock-based awards was 7,000,000 with no more than 2,000,000 available for non-option grants. The 2007 Plan, which only applied to awards granted between January 1, 2007 and May 5, 2011, will expire after 10 years. Effective May 6, 2011, Entergy’s shareholders approved the 2011 Equity Ownership and Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan (2011 Plan). The maximum number of common shares that were available for issuance from the 2011 Plan for stock-based awards was 5,500,000 with no more than 2,000,000 available for incentive stock option grants. The 2011 Plan, which only applied to awards granted between May 6, 2011 and May 7, 2015, will expire after 10 years. Effective May 8, 2015, Entergy’s shareholders approved the 2015 Equity Ownership and Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan (2015 Plan). The maximum number of common shares that can be issued from the 2015 Plan for stock-based awards is 6,900,000 with no more than 1,500,000 available for incentive stock option grants. The 2015 Plan ~~which~~ only applies to awards granted on or after May ~~6, 2011,~~8, 2015 and awards will expire ~~after 10 years.~~ten years from the date of grant. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, there were ~~5,192,463~~3,498,788 authorized shares remaining for stock-based awards, including 1,500,000 for incentive stock option grants.

Stock options are granted at exercise prices that equal the closing market price of Entergy Corporation common stock on the date of grant. Generally, stock options granted will become exercisable in equal amounts on each of the first three anniversaries of the date of grant. Unless they are forfeited previously under the terms of the grant, options expire 10 years after the date of the grant if they are not exercised.

Entergy determines the fair value of the stock option grants by considering factors such as lack of marketability, stock retention requirements, and regulatory restrictions on exercisability in accordance with accounting standards. The stock option weighted-average assumptions used in determining the fair values are as follows:

A summary of stock option activity for the year ended December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and changes during the year are presented below:

The following table summarizes information about stock options outstanding as of December 31, ~~2016:~~2017:

Stock-based compensation cost related to non-vested stock options outstanding as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 not yet recognized is approximately $6 million and is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.70 years.

~~In January 2016 the Board approved and~~ Entergy ~~granted 370,000~~grants restricted stock awards earned under its stock benefit plans in the ~~2015 Equity Ownership and Long-term Cash Incentive Plan. The restricted~~form of stock ~~awards were made effective as of January 28, 2016 and were valued at $70.56 per share, which was the closing price of Entergy Corporation’s common stock on that date.~~units. One-third of the restricted stock awards will vest upon each anniversary of the grant date and are expensed ratably over the three year vesting period. Shares of restricted stock have the same dividend and voting rights as other common stock and are considered issued and outstanding shares of Entergy upon vesting. In January 2017 the Board approved and Entergy granted 379,850 restricted stock awards under the 2015 Equity Ownership and Long-term Cash Incentive Plan. The restricted stock awards were made effective as of January 26, 2017 and were valued at $70.53 per share, which was the closing price of Entergy Corporation’s common stock on that date.

The following table includes information about the restricted stock awards outstanding as of December 31, ~~2016:~~2017:

The following table includes financial information for restricted stock for each of the years presented:

The total fair value of the restricted stock awards granted was $29 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015.

The ~~following table includes financial information for restricted stock for each of the years presented:~~

Entergy grants long-term incentive awards earned under its stock benefit plans in the form of performance units, which represents the value of one share of Entergy Corporation common stock at the end of the three-year performance period, plus dividends accrued during the performance period. The Long-Term Performance Unit Program specifies a minimum, target, and maximum achievement level, the achievement of which will determine the number of performance units that may be earned. Entergy measures performance by assessing Entergy’s total shareholder return relative to the total shareholder return of the companies in the Philadelphia Utility Index. There is no payout for performance that falls within the lowest quartile of performance of the peer companies. For top quartile performance, a maximum payout of 200% of target is earned.

The costs of incentive awards are charged to income over the 3-year period. In January ~~2016~~2017 the Board approved and Entergy granted ~~199,800~~220,450 performance units under the 2015 Equity Ownership and Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan. The performance units were made effective as of January ~~28, 2016,~~26, 2017, and were valued at ~~$84.52~~$71.40 per share. Shares of the performance units have the same dividend and voting rights as other common stock, are considered issued and outstanding shares of Entergy upon vesting, and are expensed ratably over the 3-year vesting period.

The following table includes information about the long-term performance units outstanding at the target level as of December 31, ~~2016:~~2017:

The following table includes financial information for the long-term performance units for each of the years presented:

The total fair value of the long-term performance units granted was ~~$21~~$19 million, ~~$16~~$21 million, and $16 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, respectively.

In January 2017, Entergy issued 86,964 shares of Entergy Corporation common stock at a share price of $71.89 for awards earned and dividends accrued under the 2014-2016 Long-Term Performance Unit Program. In January 2016, Entergy issued 54,103 shares of Entergy Corporation common stock at a share price of $68.09 for awards earned and dividends accrued under the 2013-2015 Long-Term Performance Unit Program. In January 2015, Entergy issued 105,503 shares of Entergy Corporation common stock at a share price of $88.67 for awards earned and dividends accrued under the 2012-2014 Long-Term Performance Unit Program. ~~There was no payout in 2014 for the performance units applicable~~

Entergy grants restricted stock unit awards earned under its stock benefit plans in the form of stock units that are subject to time-based restrictions. The restricted stock units may be settled in shares of Entergy Corporation common stock or the cash value of shares of Entergy Corporation common stock at the time of vesting. The costs of restricted stock unit awards are charged to income over the restricted period, which varies from grant to grant. The average vesting period for restricted stock unit awards granted is 4241 months. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, there were ~~181,650~~201,570 unvested restricted stock units that are expected to vest over an average period of 3024 months.

The following table includes information about the restricted stock unit awards outstanding as of December 31, ~~2016:~~2017:

The following table includes financial information for restricted stock unit awards for each of the years presented:

The total fair value of the restricted stock unit awards granted was $3 million, $5 million, ~~$4 million,~~ and $3$4 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, ~~and 2014,~~ respectively.

The total fair value of the restricted stock unit awards vested was $0.4 million, $2 million, ~~$4 million,~~ and $3$1 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, ~~and 2014,~~ respectively.

Entergy’s reportable segments as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 are Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities. Utility includes the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric power in portions of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, and natural gas utility service in portions of Louisiana. Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants located in the northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers. “All Other” includes the parent company, Entergy Corporation, and other business activity.

Entergy’s segment financial information is as follows:

On December 29, 2014, the Vermont Yankee plant ceased power production and entered its decommissioning phase. In December 2015, Rhode Island State Energy Center, a natural gas-fired combined cycle generating plant, was sold. In October 2015 management announced the intention to shutdown the FitzPatrick plant in 2017 and the Pilgrim plant in 2019, earlier than previously expected. In 2016 management announced the planned sale of Vermont Yankee in 2018, the planned sale of FitzPatrick in 2017, and the planned ~~termination~~amendment of the Consumers Energy ~~power purchase agreement for the Palisades plant~~PPA to terminate early, in May 2018, and the subsequent plan to shut down the Palisades plant in 2018, earlier than expected. In January 2017 management announced a settlement with New York State to shut down Indian Point 2 in 2020 and Indian Point 3 in 2021, both earlier than expected. In March 2017 the FitzPatrick plant was sold to Exelon. In September 2017 management announced the termination of the PPA amendment agreement with Consumers Energy and the revised plan to continue to operate Palisades under the current PPA and to shut down Palisades permanently on May 31, 2022.

Management expects these transactions to result in the cessation of merchant power generation at all Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants owned and operated by Entergy by ~~2021.~~2022. Entergy will continue to have the obligation to decommission the nuclear plants owned by Entergy.

Total restructuring charges in 2017 were comprised of the following:

Total restructuring charges in 2016 were comprised of the following:

~~In addition,~~Going forward, Entergy Wholesale Commodities expects to incur employee retention and severance expenses of approximately ~~$100~~$165 million in ~~2017~~2018 and approximately ~~$235~~$205 million from ~~2018~~2019 through ~~the end of 2021~~mid-2022 associated with these strategic transactions.

For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, the amount of revenue Entergy derived from outside of the United States was insignificant. As of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, Entergy had no long-lived assets located outside of the United States.

Each of the Registrant Subsidiaries has one reportable segment, which is an integrated utility business, except for System Energy, which is an electricity generation business. Each of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ operations is managed on an integrated basis by that company because of the substantial effect of cost-based rates and regulatory oversight on the business process, cost structures, and operating results.

In March 2016, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans purchased the Union Power Station, a 1,980 MW (summer rating) power generation facility located near El Dorado, Arkansas, from Union Power Partners, L.P. The Union Power Station consists of four natural gas-fired, combined-cycle gas turbine power blocks, each rated at 495 MW (summer rating). Entergy Louisiana purchased two of the power blocks and a 50% undivided ownership interest in certain assets related to the facility, and Entergy Arkansas and Entergy New Orleans each purchased one power block and a 25% undivided ownership interest in such related assets. The aggregate purchase price for the Union Power Station was approximately $949 million (approximately $237 million for each power block and associated assets).

Entergy’s purchase of the Palisades plant in 2007 included a unit-contingent, 15-year purchased power agreement (PPA) with Consumers Energy for 100% of the plant’s output, excluding any future uprates. Prices under the PPA range from $43.50/MWh in 2007 to $61.50/MWh in 2022, and the average price under the PPA is $51/MWh. For the PPA, which was at below-market prices at the time of the acquisition, Entergy will amortize a liability to revenue over the life of the agreement. The amount that will be amortized each period is based upon the present value, calculated at the date of acquisition, of each year’s difference between revenue under the agreement and revenue based on estimated market prices. Amounts amortized to revenue were $28 million in 2017, $13 million in 2016, and $15 million in ~~2015, and $16 million in 2014.~~ 2015.

In December 2016, Entergy ~~announced that it has~~ reached an agreement with Consumers Energy to ~~terminate~~amend the existing PPA to terminate early, on May 31, ~~2018,~~2018. Pursuant to the agreement to amend the PPA, Consumers Energy would pay Entergy $172 million for the early termination of the PPA. The PPA amendment agreement was subject to regulatory ~~approvals. Because~~approvals, including approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Separately, Entergy intended to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on October 1, 2018, after refueling in the spring of ~~entering into~~2017 and operating through the end of that fuel cycle. Entergy updated the liability amortization calculation to reflect the expected early termination ~~agreement, Entergy expects to amortize approximately $43~~of the PPA.

In September 2017 the Michigan Public Service Commission issued an order conditionally approving the PPA amendment transaction, but only granting Consumers Energy recovery of $136.6 million of the ~~liability~~$172 million requested early termination payment. As a result, Entergy and Consumers Energy agreed to terminate the PPA amendment agreement. Entergy will continue to operate Palisades under the current PPA with Consumers Energy, instead of shutting down in the fall of 2018 as previously planned. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on May 31, 2022. Based on that decision, the amounts to be amortized to revenue for the next five years will be approximately $6 million in ~~2017~~2018, $10 million in 2019, $11 million in 2020, $12 million in 2021, and ~~$29~~$5 million ~~to revenue~~ in 2018. The timing of the liability amortization could fluctuate further depending upon if, and when, regulatory approval of the early termination agreement is received. See further discussion of the Palisades transaction below.2022.

Entergy’s purchase of the FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3 plants from NYPA included value sharing agreements with NYPA. In October 2007, Entergy subsidiaries and NYPA amended and restated the value sharing agreements to clarify and amend certain provisions of the original terms. Under the amended value sharing agreements, Entergy subsidiaries made annual payments to NYPA based on the generation output of the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants from January 2007 through December 2014. Entergy subsidiaries paid NYPA $6.59 per MWh for power sold from Indian Point 3, up to an annual cap of $48 million, and $3.91 per MWh for power sold from FitzPatrick, up to an annual

In November 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell 100% of the membership interests in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC to a subsidiary of NorthStar. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee is the owner of the Vermont Yankee plant and is in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment. The sale of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to NorthStar will include the transfer of the nuclear decommissioning trust fund and the asset retirement obligation for the spent fuel management and decommissioning of the plant.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee has an outstanding credit facility with borrowing capacity of ~~$100~~$145 million to pay for dry fuel storage costs. This credit facility is guaranteed by Entergy Corporation. At or before closing, a subsidiary of Entergy will assume the obligations under the existing credit facility or enter into a new credit facility and Entergy will guarantee the credit facility. At the closing of the sale transaction, NorthStar will pay $1,000 for the membership interests in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, and NorthStar will cause Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to issue a promissory note to ~~the~~an Entergy ~~entity selling the membership interests in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee.~~subsidiary. The amount of the promissory note issued will be equal to the amount drawn under the credit facility or the amount drawn under the new credit facility, plus borrowing fees and costs incurred by Entergy in connection with such facility. The principal amount drawn under the outstanding credit facility was ~~$45~~$104 million as of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, and the net book value of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, including unrealized gains on the decommissioning trust fund, as of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, was approximately ~~$88~~$123 million.

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

The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including approval by the NRC; approval by the State of Vermont Public ~~Service Board,~~Utility Commission, including approval of revised site restoration standards that ~~will be~~have been proposed as part of the transaction; the transfer of all spent nuclear fuel to dry fuel storage on the independent spent fuel storage installation; and that the market value of the fund assets held in the decommissioning trust fund for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, less the hypothetical income tax on the aggregate unrealized net gain of such fund assets at closing, is equal to or exceeds $451.95 million, subject to adjustments. ~~The transaction is expected~~Entergy has the option to ~~close by the end of 2018, subject to certain conditions, including the condition that Entergy~~ contribute to the decommissioning trust fund if the value is less than ~~provided for in~~$451.95 million, subject to adjustments. The transaction is planned to close by the ~~agreement with NorthStar.~~end of 2018.

In August 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell the FitzPatrick plant, ~~to Exelon. The transaction is expected to close~~an 838 MW nuclear power plant owned by Entergy in the first half of 2017. The purchase price is $100 million and the assumption by Exelon of certain liabilities related to the FitzPatrick plant, with an additional $10 million non-refundable signing fee, which was paid upon the signing of the agreement. The transaction is contingent upon, among other things, the expiration of the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals from the FERC, the NRC, and the Public Service Commission of the State of New York (NYPSC), and the receipt of a private letter ruling from the IRS. NRC approval has not yet been received, but all other necessary regulatory approvals have been received. Because certain specified conditions were satisfied in November 2016, including the continued effectiveness of the Clean Energy Standards/Zero Emissions Credit program (CES/ZEC), the establishment of certain long-term agreements on acceptable terms with the Energy Research and Development Authority of the State of New York in connection with the CES/ZEC program, and NYPSC approval of the transaction on acceptable terms, Entergy refueled the FitzPatrick plant in January and February 2017. Entergy expects to operate the FitzPatrick plant until the asset purchase agreement closing date. Entergy entered into a reimbursement agreement with Exelon pursuant to which Exelon will reimburse Entergy for specified out-of-pocket costs associated with the refueling and operation of FitzPatrick that otherwise would have been avoided had Entergy shut down FitzPatrick in January 2017. Pursuant to the reimbursement agreement, as of December 31, 2016 Exelon reimbursed Entergy $56 million for nuclear fuel expenses and $41 million for other operation and maintenance expenses associated with preparing to refuel FitzPatrick in 2017. If the asset purchase agreement is terminated, a termination fee of up to $30 million will be payable to Entergy under certain circumstances. If it is consummated, the transaction could result in a gain or loss because of fluctuations in the decommissioning trust fund earnings and asset retirement obligation accretion. Upon the closing of the sale, the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust along with the decommissioning obligation for that plant will be transfered to Exelon.

In March 2017 the NRC approved the sale of the plant to Exelon. The transaction closed in March 2017 for a purchase price of $110 million, which included a $10 million non-refundable signing fee paid in August 2016, in addition to the assumption by Exelon of certain liabilities related to the FitzPatrick plant, resulting in a pre-tax gain on the sale of $16 million. At the transaction close, Exelon paid an additional $8 million for the proration of certain expenses prepaid by Entergy. The disposition-date fair value of the decommissioning trust fund was $805 million, classified within other deferred debits, and the disposition-date fair value of the asset retirement obligation was $727 million, classified within other non-current liabilities. The transaction also included property, plant, and equipment with a net book value of zero, materials and supplies, and prepaid assets.

As part of the transaction, Entergy entered into a reimbursement agreement with Exelon pursuant to which Exelon reimbursed Entergy for specified out-of-pocket costs associated with Entergy’s operation of FitzPatrick prior to closing of the sale. In the first quarter 2017, Entergy billed Exelon for reimbursement of $98 million of other operation and maintenance expenses, $7 million in lost operating revenues, and $3 million in taxes other than income taxes, partially offset by a $10 million defueling credit to Exelon.

As discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements, as a result of the sale of FitzPatrick on March 31, 2017, Entergy redetermined the plant’s tax basis, resulting in a $44 million income tax benefit in the first quarter 2017.

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

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

Entergy determined in October 2015 that it would close FitzPatrick at the end of its ~~current~~ fuel cycle, which was planned for January 27, 2017, because of poor market conditions that led to reduced revenues, a poor market design that failed to properly compensate nuclear generators for the benefits they provide, and increased operational costs. This decision came after management’s extensive analysis of whether it was advisable economically to refuel the plant, as scheduled, in the fall of 2016. Entergy also had discussions with the State of New York regarding the future of FitzPatrick. Because of the uncertainty regarding the refueling decision and its implications to the plant’s expected operating life, Entergy tested the recoverability of the plant and related assets as of September 30, 2015. See above in the Dispositions section for further information on the subsequent decision to sell the FitzPatrick plant.

Entergy determined in October 2015 that it would close Pilgrim no later than June 1, 2019 because of poor market conditions that led to reduced revenues, a poor market design that failed to properly compensate nuclear generators for the benefits they provide, and increased operational costs. The decision came after management’s extensive analysis of the economics and operating life of the plant following the NRC’s decision in September 2015

Due to the announced plant closures in October 2015, as well as the continued challenging market price trend, the high level of investment required to continue to operate the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants, and the inadequate compensation provided to nuclear generators for their capacity benefits under the current market design, in the fourth quarter 2015, Entergy tested the recoverability of the plant and related assets of the two remaining operating nuclear power generating facilities in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, Palisades and Indian ~~Point, in the fourth quarter 2015.~~Point. For purposes of that evaluation, Entergy considered a number of factors associated with the facilities’ continued operation, including the status of the associated NRC licenses, the status of state regulatory issues, existing power purchase agreements, and the supply region in which the nuclear facilities sell energy and capacity.

Under generally accepted accounting principles the determination of an asset’s recoverability is based on the probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows expected to be generated by the plant and related assets. Projected net cash flows primarily depend on the status of the operations of the plant and pending legal and state regulatory matters, as well as projections of future revenues and costs over the estimated remaining life of the plant.

The tests for FitzPatrick and Pilgrim indicated that the probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows did not exceed the carrying values of the plants and related assets as of September 30, 2015.

The test for Palisades indicated that the probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows did not exceed the carrying value of the plant and related assets as of December 31, 2015.

The test for Indian Point indicated that the probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows exceeded the carrying value of the plant and related assets as of December 31, 2015. As such, the carrying value of Indian Point

As of September 30, 2015, the estimated fair value of the FitzPatrick plant and related long-lived assets was $29 million, while the carrying value was $742 million, resulting in an impairment charge of $713 million. Materials and supplies were evaluated and written down by $48 million. In addition, FitzPatrick had a contract asset recorded for an agreement between Entergy subsidiaries and NYPA entered when Entergy subsidiaries purchased FitzPatrick from NYPA in 2000 and NYPA retained the decommissioning trusts and the decommissioning liabilities. The agreement gave NYPA the right to require the Entergy subsidiaries to assume the decommissioning liability provided that it assigns the decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to Entergy. If NYPA retained the decommissioning liabilities, the Entergy subsidiaries would perform the decommissioning of the plant at a price equal to the lesser of a pre-specified level or the amount in the decommissioning trusts. The contract asset represented an estimate of the present value of the difference between the Entergy subsidiaries’ stipulated contract amount for decommissioning the plants less the decommissioning costs estimated in independent decommissioning cost studies. See Note 9 for further discussion of the contract asset. Due to a change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows, the result was a write down of the contract asset from $335 million to $131 million, for a charge of $204 million. In summary, as of September 30, 2015, the impairment and related charges for FitzPatrick was $965 million ($624 million net-of-tax).

As of September 30, 2015, the estimated fair value of the Pilgrim plant and related long-lived assets is $65 million, while the carrying value was $718 million, resulting in an impairment charge of $653 million. Materials and supplies were evaluated and written down by $24 million. In summary, as of September 30, 2015, the total impairment loss and related charges for Pilgrim was $677 million ($438 million net-of-tax). The pre-impairment carrying value of $718 million includes the effect of a $134 million increase in Pilgrim’s estimated decommissioning cost liability and the related asset retirement cost asset. The increase in the estimated decommissioning cost liability primarily resulted from the change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows. ~~See Note 9~~

As of December 31, 2015, the estimated fair value of the Palisades plant and related long-lived assets was $463 million, while the carrying value was $859 million, resulting in an impairment charge of $396 million ($256 million net-of-tax). The pre-impairment carrying value of $859 million includes the effect of a $42 million increase in Palisades’ estimated decommissioning cost liability and the related asset retirement cost asset. The increase in the estimated decommissioning cost liability primarily resulted from the assessment of the estimated decommissioning cash flows that occurred in conjunction with the impairment analysis.

As discussed in more detail above in the Acquisitionssection, in December 2016, Entergy reached an agreement with Consumers Energy to amend the existing PPA to terminate early, on May 31, 2018. The PPA amendment agreement was subject to regulatory approvals, including approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Separately, Entergy intended to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on October 1, 2018, after refueling in the spring of 2017 and operating through the end of that fuel cycle. As a result of the planned PPA termination and its intention to shut down the plant, Entergy tested the recoverability of the plant and related assets as of December 31, 2016. Entergy and Consumers Energy subsequently agreed to terminate the PPA amendment agreement and Entergy now intends to shut down the Palisades plant permanently on May 31, 2022.

Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 have an application pending for renewed NRC licenses. Various parties, including the State of New York, expressed opposition to renewal of the licenses. Under federal law, nuclear power plants may continue to operate beyond their original license expiration dates while their timely filed renewal applications are pending NRC approval. Indian Point 2 reached the expiration date of its original NRC operating license on September 28, 2013, and Indian Point 3 reached the expiration date of its original NRC operating license on December 12, 2015. Upon expiration of their operating licenses, each plant entered into a period of extended operation under the timely renewal rule.

In January 2017, Entergy announced that it reached a settlement with New York State to shut down Indian Point 2 by April 30, 2020 and Indian Point 3 by April 30, 2021, and resolve all New York State-initiated legal challenges to Indian Point’s operating license renewal. As part of the settlement, New York State agreed to issue Indian Point’s water quality certification and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency certification and to withdraw its objection to license renewal before the NRC. New York State also agreed to issue a water discharge permit, which is required regardless of whether the plant is seeking a renewed NRC license. The shutdowns are conditioned, among other things, upon such actions being taken by New York State. As a result of its evaluation of alternatives to the continued operation of the Indian Point plants, and taking into consideration the status of negotiations with the State of New York, Entergy tested the recoverability of the plants and related assets as of December 31, 2016.

The tests for Palisades and Indian Point indicated that the probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows did not exceed the carrying values of the plants and related assets as of December 31, 2016.

As of December 31, 2016 the estimated fair value of the Palisades plant and related long-lived assets was $206 million, while the carrying value was $558 million, resulting in an impairment charge of $352 million. Materials and supplies were evaluated and written down by $48 million. In summary, as of December 31, 2016, the total impairment loss and related charges for Palisades was $400 million ($258 million net-of-tax). The pre-impairment carrying value of $558 million included the effect of a $129 million increase in Palisades’ estimated decommissioning cost liability and the related asset retirement cost asset. The increase in the estimated decommissioning cost liability primarily resulted from the change in expectation regarding the timing of decommissioning cash flows. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion regarding the Palisades decommissioning cost revision.

~~2014 Impairment Conclusion~~

In 2017 Entergy management continued to execute the strategy to reduce the size of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet, with the planned shutdowns of Pilgrim by May 31, 2019, Indian Point 2 by April 30, 2020, Indian Point 3 by April 30, 2021, and, as discussed in further detail above in the Acquisitions section, Palisades on May 31, 2022. The FitzPatrick plant was classified as held-for-sale at December 31, 2016, and subsequently sold to Exelon in March 2017.

In 2017 Entergy Wholesale Commodities incurred $538 million of impairment charges related to nuclear fuel spending, nuclear refueling outage spending, and expenditures for capital assets. These costs were charged to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired fair value of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet.

As discussed above in the Acquisitions section, as a result of the Michigan Public Service Commission only granting Consumers Energy partial recovery of the requested early termination payment, Entergy and Consumers Energy agreed to terminate the PPA amendment agreement in September 2017. Entergy will continue to operate Palisades under the current PPA with Consumers Energy, instead of shutting down in the fall of 2018 as previously planned. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades plant permanently on May 31, 2022. As a result of the change in expected operating life of the Palisades plant, the expected probability-weighted undiscounted net cash flows as of September 30, 2017 exceeded the carrying value of the plant and related assets. Accordingly, nuclear fuel spending, nuclear refueling outage spending, and expenditures for capital assets incurred at Palisades after September 30, 2017 are no longer charged to expense as incurred, but recorded as assets and depreciated or amortized, subject to the typical periodic impairment reviews prescribed in the accounting rules.

The impairments and other related charges are recorded as a separate line item in Entergy’s consolidated statements of operations and are included within the results of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment. In addition to the impairments and other related charges, Entergy expects to incur additional charges through ~~2021~~mid-2022 associated with these strategic transactions. See Note 13 to the financial statements for further discussion of these additional charges.

~~202~~

The following table sets forth a description of significant unobservable inputs used in the valuation of the FitzPatrick, Pilgrim, Palisades, and Indian Point ~~Pilgrim, and Palisades~~ plants and related assets:

In the normal course of business, Entergy is exposed to a number of market risks. Market risk is the potential loss that Entergy may incur as a result of changes in the market or fair value of a particular commodity or instrument. All financial and commodity-related instruments, including derivatives, are subject to market risk including commodity

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

As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy and capacity in the day ahead or spot markets. In addition to its forward physical power and gas contracts, Entergy Wholesale Commodities also uses a combination of financial contracts, including swaps, collars, and options, to mitigate commodity price risk. When the market price falls, the combination of instruments is expected to settle in gains that offset lower revenue from generation, which results in a more predictable cash flow.

Entergy’s exposure to market risk is determined by a number of factors, including the size, term, composition, and diversification of positions held, as well as market volatility and liquidity. For instruments such as options, the time period during which the option may be exercised and the relationship between the current market price of the underlying instrument and the option’s contractual strike or exercise price also affects the level of market risk. A significant factor influencing the overall level of market risk to which Entergy is exposed is its use of hedging techniques to mitigate such risk. Hedging instruments and volumes are chosen based on ability to mitigate risk associated with future energy and capacity prices; however, other considerations are factored into hedge product and volume decisions including corporate liquidity, corporate credit ratings, counterparty credit risk, hedging costs, firm settlement risk, and product availability in the marketplace. Entergy manages market risk by actively monitoring compliance with stated risk management policies as well as monitoring the effectiveness of its hedging policies and strategies. Entergy’s risk management policies limit the amount of total net exposure and rolling net exposure during the stated periods. These policies, including related risk limits, are regularly assessed to ensure their appropriateness given Entergy’s objectives.

Some derivative instruments are classified as cash flow hedges due to their financial settlement provisions while others are classified as normal purchase/normal sale transactions due to their physical settlement provisions. Normal purchase/normal sale risk management tools include power purchase and sales agreements, fuel purchase agreements, capacity contracts, and tolling agreements. Financially-settled cash flow hedges can include natural gas and electricity swaps and options and interest rate swaps. Entergy may enter into financially-settled swap and option contracts to manage market risk that may or may not be designated as hedging instruments.

Entergy may use standardized master netting agreements to help mitigate the credit risk of derivative instruments. These master agreements facilitate the netting of cash flows associated with a single counterparty and may include collateral requirements. Cash, letters of credit, and parental/affiliate guarantees may be obtained as security from counterparties in order to mitigate credit risk. The collateral agreements require a counterparty to post cash or letters of credit in the event an exposure exceeds an established threshold. The threshold represents an unsecured credit limit, which may be supported by a parental/affiliate guaranty, as determined in accordance with Entergy’s credit policy.

Certain of the agreements to sell the power produced by Entergy Wholesale Commodities power plants contain provisions that require an Entergy subsidiary to provide credit support to secure its obligations depending on the mark-to-market values of the contracts. The primary form of credit support to satisfy these requirements is an Entergy Corporation guarantee. As of December 31, 2017, derivative contracts with eight counterparties were in a liability position (approximately $65 million total). In addition to the corporate guarantee, $1 million in cash collateral was required to be posted by the Entergy subsidiary to its counterparties and $4 million in cash collateral and $34 million in letters of credit were required to be posted by its counterparties to the Entergy subsidiary. As of December 31, 2016, derivative contracts with 3three counterparties were in a liability position (approximately $8 million total). In addition to the corporate guarantee, $2 million in cash collateral was required to be posted by the Entergy subsidiary to its counterparties. As of December 31, 2015, derivative contracts with 2 counterparties were in a liability position (approximately $2 million total). As of December 31, 2015, $9 million in cash collateral was required to be posted by the Entergy subsidiary to its counterparties and $68 million was required to be posted by its counterparties to the Entergy subsidiary. If the Entergy Corporation credit rating falls below investment grade, ~~the effect of the corporate guarantee is typically ignored and~~ Entergy would have to post collateral equal to the estimated outstanding liability under the contract at the applicable date.

Entergy manages fuel price volatility for its Louisiana jurisdictions (Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans) and Entergy Mississippi through the purchase of short-term natural gas swaps that financially settle against NYMEX futures. These swaps are marked-to-market through fuel expense with offsetting regulatory assets or liabilities. All benefits or costs of the program are recorded in fuel costs. The notional volumes of these swaps are based on a portion of projected annual exposure to gas for electric generation at Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Mississippi and projected winter purchases for gas distribution at Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans. The total volume of natural gas swaps outstanding as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 is ~~37,970,000~~38,540,750 MMBtu for Entergy, including ~~30,940,000~~31,361,500 MMBtu for Entergy Louisiana, ~~6,540,000~~6,714,250 MMBtu for Entergy Mississippi, and ~~490,000~~465,000 MMBtu for Entergy New Orleans. Credit support for these natural gas swaps is covered by master agreements that do not require ~~collateralization~~collateral based on mark-to-market value, but do carry adequate assurance language that may lead to ~~collateralization requests.~~requests for collateral.

During the second quarter ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy participated in the annual financial transmission ~~right (FTR)~~rights auction process for the MISO planning year of June 1, ~~2016~~2017 through May 31, ~~2017. FTRs~~2018. Financial transmission rights are derivative instruments which represent economic hedges of future congestion charges that will be incurred in serving Entergy’s customer load. They are not designated as hedging instruments. Entergy initially records ~~FTRs~~financial transmission rights at their estimated fair value and subsequently adjusts the carrying value to their estimated fair value at the end of each accounting period prior to settlement. Unrealized gains or losses on ~~FTRs~~financial transmission rights held by Entergy Wholesale Commodities are included in operating revenues. The Utility operating companies recognize regulatory liabilities or assets for unrealized gains or losses on ~~FTRs.~~financial transmission rights. The total volume of ~~FTRs~~financial transmission rights outstanding as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 is ~~46,216~~46,474 GWh for Entergy, including ~~10,540~~10,479 GWh for Entergy Arkansas, ~~19,467~~20,590 GWh for Entergy Louisiana, ~~7,535~~6,391 GWh for Entergy Mississippi, ~~2,234~~2,366 GWh for Entergy New Orleans, and ~~6,248~~6,322 GWh for Entergy Texas. Credit support for ~~FTRs~~financial transmission rights held by the Utility operating companies is covered by cash and/or letters of credit issued by each Utility operating company as required by MISO. Credit support for ~~FTRs~~financial transmission rights held by Entergy Wholesale Commodities is covered by cash. No cash or letters of credit were required to be posted for financial transmission rights exposure for Entergy Wholesale Commodities as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. Letters of credit posted with MISO covered the financial transmission rights exposure for Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy Texas as of December 31 2017 and for Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi as of December 31, 2016.

~~by Entergy Wholesale Commodities is covered by cash. As~~The fair values of Entergy’s derivative instruments in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, ~~2016, letters~~2017 are shown in the table below. Certain investments, including those not designated as hedging instruments, are subject to master netting agreements and are presented in the balance sheet on a net basis in accordance with accounting guidance for derivatives and hedging.

The fair values of Entergy’s derivative instruments in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016 are shown in the table below. Certain investments, including those not designated as hedging instruments, are subject to master netting agreements and are presented in the balance sheet on a net basis in accordance with accounting guidance for derivatives and hedging.

Based on market prices as of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, unrealized gains recorded in ~~AOCI~~accumulated other comprehensive income on cash flow hedges relating to power sales totaled ~~($9)~~$55 million of net unrealized ~~gains.~~losses. Approximately ($~~15)~~59) million is expected to be reclassified from ~~AOCI~~accumulated other comprehensive income to operating revenues in the next twelve months. The actual amount reclassified from ~~AOCI,~~accumulated other comprehensive income, however, could vary due to future changes in market prices.

Entergy may effectively liquidate a cash flow hedge instrument by entering into a contract offsetting the original hedge, and then de-designating the original hedge in this situation. Gains or losses accumulated in other comprehensive income prior to de-designation continue to be deferred in other comprehensive income until they are included in income as the original hedged transaction occurs. From the point of de-designation, the gains or losses on the original hedge and the offsetting contract are recorded as assets or liabilities on the balance sheet and offset as they flow through to earnings.

The effects of Entergy’s derivative instruments not designated as hedging instruments on the consolidated income statements ~~of operations~~ for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 are as follows:

The fair values of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ derivative instruments not designated as hedging instruments on their balance sheets as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

The effects of the Registrant Subsidiaries’ derivative instruments not designated as hedging instruments on their income statements for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 are as follows:

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

Accounting standards define fair value as an exit price, or the price that would be received to sell an asset or the amount that would be paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between knowledgeable market participants at the date of measurement. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries use assumptions or market input data that market participants would use in pricing assets or liabilities at fair value. The inputs can be readily observable, corroborated by market data, or generally unobservable. Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries endeavor to use the best available information to determine fair value.

Accounting standards establish a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. The hierarchy establishes the highest priority for unadjusted market quotes in an active market for the identical asset or liability and the lowest priority for unobservable inputs.

Effective first quarter 2016, Entergy retrospectively adopted ASU 2015-07, which simplifies the disclosure for fair value investments by removing the requirement to categorize within the fair value hierarchy investments for which fair value is measured using the net asset value per share as a practical expedient. For all periods presented the common trust funds have not been assigned a level and are presented within the fair value tables only as a reconciling item to the total fair value of investments.

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of changes in the net assets (liabilities) for the fair value of derivatives classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014:~~2015:

The following table sets forth a description of the types of transactions classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy and significant unobservable inputs to each which cause that classification, as of December 31, ~~2016:~~2017:

The following table sets forth an analysis of each of the types of unobservable inputs impacting the fair value of items classified as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy, and the sensitivity to changes to those inputs:

The following table sets forth, by level within the fair value hierarchy, the Registrant Subsidiaries’ assets that are accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and December 31, ~~2015.~~2016. The assessment of the significance of a particular input to a fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect its placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of changes in the net assets (liabilities) for the fair value of derivatives classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the year ended December 31, ~~2016.~~2017.

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of changes in the net assets (liabilities) for the fair value of derivatives classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the year ended December 31, ~~2015.~~2016.

Entergy holds debt and equity securities, classified as available-for-sale, in nuclear decommissioning trust accounts. The NRC requires Entergy subsidiaries to maintain trusts to fund the costs of decommissioning ANO 1, ANO 2, River Bend, Waterford 3, Grand Gulf, Pilgrim, Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, Vermont Yankee, and Palisades. The funds are invested primarily in equity securities, fixed-rate debt securities, and cash and cash equivalents.

For the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants purchased in 2000 from NYPA, NYPA retained the decommissioning trust funds and the decommissioning liabilities. NYPA and Entergy subsidiaries executed decommissioning agreements, which specified their decommissioning obligations. At the time of the acquisition of the plants Entergy recorded a contract asset that represented an estimate of the present value of the difference between the stipulated contract amount for decommissioning the plants less the decommissioning costs estimated in independent decommissioning cost studies.

In August 2016, Entergy entered into a trust transfer agreement with NYPA to transfer the decommissioning trust funds and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants to Entergy. The transaction ~~was contingent upon receiving approval from the NRC, which was received in January 2017. As a result of the~~

Entergy records decommissioning trust funds on the balance sheet at their fair value. Because of the ability of the Registrant Subsidiaries to recover decommissioning costs in rates and in accordance with the regulatory treatment for decommissioning trust funds, the Registrant Subsidiaries have recorded an offsetting amount of unrealized gains/(losses) on investment securities in other regulatory liabilities/assets. For the 30% interest in River Bend formerly owned by Cajun, Entergy Louisiana ~~has recorded~~records an offsetting amount ~~of unrealized gains/(losses)~~ in other deferred ~~credits.~~credits for the excess trust earnings not currently expected to be needed to decommission the plant. Decommissioning trust funds for Pilgrim, Indian Point 1, Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, Vermont Yankee, and Palisades do not meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment. Accordingly, unrealized gains recorded on the assets in these trust funds are recognized in the accumulated other comprehensive income component of shareholders’ equity because these assets are classified as available for sale. Unrealized losses (where cost exceeds fair market value) on the assets in these trust funds are also recorded in the accumulated other comprehensive income component of shareholders’ equity unless the unrealized loss is other than temporary and therefore recorded in earnings. Generally, Entergy records realized gains and losses on its debt and equity securities using the specific identification method to determine the cost basis of its securities.

The securities held as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are summarized as follows:

The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds related to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants as of December 31, 2017 are $491 million for Indian Point 1, $621 million for Indian Point 2, $798 million for Indian Point 3, $458 million for Palisades, $1,068 million for Pilgrim, and $613 million for Vermont Yankee. The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds related to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants as of December 31, 2016 are $443 million for Indian Point 1, $564 million for Indian Point 2, $412 million for Palisades, $960 million for Pilgrim, and $584 million for Vermont Yankee. The fair values of the decommissioning trust funds for the Registrant Subsidiaries’ nuclear plants are detailed below.

Deferred taxes on unrealized gains/(losses) are recorded in other comprehensive income (loss) for the decommissioning trusts which do not meet the criteria for regulatory accounting treatment as described above. Unrealized gains/(losses) above are reported before deferred taxes of ~~$399~~$479 million and ~~$342~~$399 million as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015,~~2016, respectively. The amortized cost of debt securities was $2,539 million as of December 31, 2017 and $2,212 million as of December 31, ~~2016 and $2,124 million as of December 31, 2015.~~2016. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, the debt securities have an average coupon rate of approximately ~~3.21%~~3.24%, an average duration of approximately ~~5.89~~6.33 years, and an average maturity of approximately ~~9.39~~9.99 years. The equity securities are generally held in funds that are designed to approximate or somewhat exceed the

The fair value and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale equity and debt securities, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015:~~2016:

The fair value of debt securities, summarized by contractual maturities, as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, proceeds from the dispositions of securities amounted to $3,163 million, $2,409 million, ~~$2,492 million,~~ and ~~$1,872~~$2,492 million, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, gross gains of $149 million, $32 million, ~~$72 million,~~ and ~~$39~~$72 million, respectively, and gross losses of $13 million, $13 million, and $8$13 million, respectively, were reclassified out of other comprehensive income into earnings.

Entergy Arkansas holds debt and equity securities, classified as available-for-sale, in nuclear decommissioning trust accounts. The securities held as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are summarized as follows:

The fair value and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale equity and debt securities, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015:~~2016:

The fair value of debt securities, summarized by contractual maturities, as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, proceeds from the dispositions of securities amounted to $339.4 million, $197.4 million, ~~$213 million,~~ and ~~$181.5~~$213 million, respectively. During the years ended December 31,

Entergy Louisiana holds debt and equity securities, classified as available-for-sale, in nuclear decommissioning trust accounts. The securities held as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are summarized as follows:

The fair value and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale equity and debt securities, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015:~~2016:

The fair value of debt securities, summarized by contractual maturities, as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, proceeds from the dispositions of securities amounted to $231.3 million, $219.2 million, ~~$123.5 million,~~ and ~~$216.7~~$123.5 million, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, gross gains of $12 million, $3.9 million, ~~$1.9 million,~~ and ~~$2.2~~$1.9 million, respectively, and gross losses of $0.4 million, ~~$0.3~~$0.4 million, and $0.3 million, respectively, were recorded in earnings.

System Energy holds debt and equity securities, classified as available-for-sale, in nuclear decommissioning trust accounts. The securities held as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are summarized as follows:

The fair value and gross unrealized losses of available-for-sale equity and debt securities, summarized by investment type and length of time that the securities have been in a continuous loss position, are as follows as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015:~~2016:

The fair value of debt securities, summarized by contractual maturities, as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 are as follows:

During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, proceeds from the dispositions of securities amounted to $565.4 million, $499.3 million, ~~$390.4 million,~~ and ~~$392.9~~$390.4 million, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014,~~2015, gross gains of $1.4 million, $3.5 million, ~~$3.3 million,~~ and ~~$1.8~~$3.3 million, respectively, and gross losses of $3.3 million, $1.7 million, ~~$0.5 million,~~ and ~~$0.9~~$0.5 million, respectively, were recorded in earnings.

Entergy evaluates investment securities in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear decommissioning trust funds with unrealized losses at the end of each period to determine whether an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred. The assessment of whether an investment in a debt security has suffered an other-than-temporary impairment is based on whether Entergy has the intent to sell or more likely than not will be required to sell the debt security before recovery of its amortized costs. Further, if Entergy does not expect to recover the entire amortized cost basis of the debt security, an other-than-temporary impairment is considered to have occurred and it is measured by the present value of cash flows expected to be collected less the amortized cost basis (credit loss). Entergy did not have any material other-than-temporary impairments relating to credit losses on debt securities for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014.~~2015. The assessment of whether an investment in an equity security has suffered an other-than-temporary impairment is based on a number of factors including, first, whether Entergy has the ability and intent to hold the investment to recover its value, the duration and severity of any losses, and, then, whether it is expected that the investment will recover its value within a reasonable period of time. Entergy’s trusts are managed by third parties who operate in accordance with agreements that define investment guidelines and place restrictions on the purchases and sales of investments. Entergy did not record material charges to other income in 2017, 2016, or 2015 ~~and 2014, respectively,~~ resulting from the recognition of the other-than-temporary impairment of ~~certain~~ equity securities held in its decommissioning trust funds.

Under applicable authoritative accounting guidance, a variable interest entity (VIE) is an entity that conducts a business or holds property that possesses any of the following characteristics: an insufficient amount of equity at risk to finance its activities, equity owners who do not have the power to direct the significant activities of the entity (or have voting rights that are disproportionate to their ownership interest), or where equity holders do not receive expected losses or returns. An entity may have an interest in a VIE through ownership or other contractual rights or obligations, and is required to consolidate a VIE if it is the VIE’s primary beneficiary. The primary beneficiary of a VIE is the entity that has the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly affect the VIE’s economic performance, and has the obligation to absorb losses or has the right to residual returns that would potentially be significant to the entity.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy consolidate the respective companies from which they lease nuclear fuel, usually in a sale and leaseback transaction. This is because Entergy directs the nuclear fuel companies with respect to nuclear fuel purchases, assists the nuclear fuel companies in obtaining financing, and, if financing cannot be arranged, the lessee (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, or System Energy) is responsible to repurchase nuclear fuel to allow the nuclear fuel company (the VIE) to meet its obligations. During the term of the arrangements, none of the Entergy operating companies have been required to provide financial support apart from their scheduled lease payments. See Note 4 to the financial statements for details of the nuclear fuel companies’ credit facility and commercial paper borrowings and long-term debt that are reported by Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy. These amounts also represent Entergy’s and the respective Registrant Subsidiary’s maximum exposure to losses associated with their respective interests in the nuclear fuel companies.

Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding I, LLC, and Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, LLC, companies wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Texas, are variable interest entities and Entergy Texas is the primary beneficiary. In June 2007, Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding issued senior secured transition bonds (securitization bonds) to finance Entergy Texas’s Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs. In November 2009, Entergy Texas Restoration Funding issued senior secured transition bonds (securitization bonds) to finance Entergy Texas’s Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav restoration costs. With the proceeds, the variable interest entities purchased from Entergy Texas the transition property, which is the right to recover from customers through a transition charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. The transition property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Texas balance sheet. The creditors of Entergy Texas do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of the variable interest entities, including the transition property, and the creditors of the variable interest entities do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Texas. Entergy Texas has no payment obligations to the variable interest entities except to remit transition charge collections. See Note 5 to the financial statements for additional details regarding the securitization bonds.

Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC, a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Arkansas, is a variable interest entity and Entergy Arkansas is the primary beneficiary. In August 2010, Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding issued storm cost recovery bonds to finance Entergy Arkansas’s January 2009 ice storm damage restoration costs. With the proceeds, Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding purchased from Entergy Arkansas the storm recovery property, which is the right to recover from customers through a storm recovery charge amounts sufficient to service the securitization bonds. The storm recovery property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Arkansas balance sheet. The creditors of Entergy Arkansas do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, including the storm recovery property, and the creditors of Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Arkansas. Entergy Arkansas has no payment obligations to Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding except to remit storm recovery charge collections. See Note 5 to the financial statements for additional details regarding the storm cost recovery bonds.

Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding I, L.L.C., a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy Louisiana, is a variable interest entity and Entergy Louisiana is the primary beneficiary. In September 2011, Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding issued investment recovery bonds to recover Entergy Louisiana’s investment recovery costs associated with the canceled Little Gypsy repowering project. With the proceeds, Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding purchased from Entergy Louisiana the investment recovery property, which is the right to recover from customers through an investment recovery charge amounts sufficient to service the bonds. The investment recovery property is reflected as a regulatory asset on the consolidated Entergy Louisiana balance sheet. The creditors of Entergy Louisiana do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding, including the investment recovery property, and the creditors of Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding do not have recourse to the assets or revenues of Entergy Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana has no payment obligations to Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding except to remit investment recovery charge collections. See Note 5 to the financial statements for additional details regarding the investment recovery bonds.

Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding I, L.L.C., a company wholly-owned and consolidated by Entergy New Orleans, is a variable interest entity, and Entergy New Orleans is the primary beneficiary. In July 2015,

Entergy Louisiana was considered to hold a variable interest in the lessor from which it leased an undivided interest in the Waterford 3 nuclear plant. After Entergy Louisiana acquired a beneficial interest in the leased assets in March 2016, however, the lessor was no longer considered a variable interest entity. Entergy Louisiana made payments on its lease, including interest, of $9.2 million through March 2016 and $28.8 million in ~~2015, and $31 million in 2014.~~2015. See Note 10 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s purchase of the Waterford 3 leased assets.

System Energy is considered to hold a variable interest in the lessor from which it leases an undivided interest in the Grand Gulf nuclear plant. System Energy is the lessee under this arrangement, which is described in more detail in Note 10 to the financial statements. System Energy made payments on its lease, including interest, of $17.2 million in 2017, $17.2 million in 2016, and $52.3 million in ~~2015, and $51.6 million in 2014.~~2015. The lessor is a bank acting in the capacity of owner trustee for the benefit of equity investors in the transaction pursuant to trust agreement entered solely for the purpose of facilitating the lease transaction. It is possible that System Energy may be considered as the primary beneficiary of the lessor, but Entergy is unable to apply the authoritative accounting guidance with respect to this VIE because the lessor is not required to, and could not, provide the necessary financial information to consolidate the lessor. Because Entergy accounts for this leasing arrangement as a capital financing, however, Entergy believes that consolidating the lessor would not materially affect the financial statements. In the unlikely event of default under a lease, remedies available to the lessor include payment by the lessee of the fair value of the undivided interest in the plant, payment of the present value of the basic rent payments, or payment of a predetermined casualty value. Entergy believes, however, that the obligations recorded on the balance sheet materially represent the company’s potential exposure to loss.

Entergy has also reviewed various lease arrangements, power purchase agreements, including agreements for renewable power, and other agreements that represent variable interests in other legal entities which have been determined to be variable interest entities. In these cases, Entergy has determined that it is not the primary beneficiary of the related VIE because it does not have the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly affect the VIE’s economic performance, or it does not have the obligation to absorb losses or the right to residual returns that would potentially be significant to the entity, or both.

Each Registrant Subsidiary purchases electricity from or sells electricity to the other Registrant Subsidiaries, or both, under rate schedules filed with the FERC. The Registrant Subsidiaries receive management, technical, advisory, operating, and administrative services from Entergy Services; and receive management, technical, and operating services from Entergy Operations. These transactions are on an “at cost” basis.

As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, all of System Energy’s operating revenues consist of billings to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans.

As described in Note 4 to the financial statements, the Registrant Subsidiaries participate in Entergy’s money pool and earn interest income from the money pool. As described in Note 2 to the financial statements, Entergy Louisiana receives preferred membership interest distributions from Entergy Holdings Company.

The tables below contain the various affiliate transactions of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and other Entergy affiliates.

EWO Marketing, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy, paid capacity charges and gas transportation to RS Cogen in the amounts of $24.6 million in 2017, $24.7 million in 2016, and $24.5 million in ~~2015, and $23.1 million in 2014.~~2015.

Entergy’s operating transactions with its other equity method investees were not significant in 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ or ~~2014.~~

Operating results for the four quarters of ~~2016~~2017 and ~~2015~~2016 for Entergy Corporation and subsidiaries were:

Results of operations for 2017 include: 1) $538 million ($350 million net-of-tax) of impairment charges due to costs being charged to expense as incurred as a result of the impaired value of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants’ long-lived assets due to the significantly reduced remaining estimated operating lives associated with management’s strategy to reduce the size of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ merchant fleet; 2) a reduction in income of $181 million, including a $34 million net-of-tax reduction of regulatory liabilities, at Utility and $397 million at Entergy Wholesale Commodities and an increase in income of $52 million at Parent and Other as a result of Entergy’s re-measurement of its deferred tax assets and liabilities not subject to the ratemaking process due to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, which lowered the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%; and 3) a reduction in income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, of $373 million as a result of a change in the tax classification of legal entities that own Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment and related charges. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the change in the tax classification.

Results of operations for 2016 ~~include~~include: 1) $2,836 million ($1,829 million net-of-tax) of impairment and related charges primarily to write down the carrying values of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Palisades, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair ~~values. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the impairment and related charges. Results of operations for 2016 also include~~values; 2) a reduction of income tax expense, net of unrecognized tax benefits, of $238 million as a result of a change in the tax ~~election to treat~~classification of a ~~subsidiary~~legal entity that ~~owns~~owned one of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power ~~plants as a corporation for federal income tax purposes;~~plants; income tax benefits as a result of the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit, including a $75 million tax benefit recognized by Entergy Louisiana related to the treatment

The business of the Utility operating companies is subject to seasonal fluctuations with the peak periods occurring during the third quarter. Operating results for the Registrant Subsidiaries for the four quarters of 2017 and 2016 ~~and 2015~~ were:

Entergy is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 MW of electric generating capacity, including nearly ~~10,000~~9,000 MW of nuclear power. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.9 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Entergy had annual revenues of ~~$10.8~~$11.1 billion in ~~2016~~2017 and had more than 13,000 employees as of December 31, ~~2016.~~2017.

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

Entergy’s mission is to operate a world-class energy business that creates sustainable value for its owners, customers, employees, and communities. Entergy aspires to achieve top quartile total shareholder returns in a socially and environmentally responsible fashion by leveraging the scale and expertise inherent in its operations. Entergy’s current scope includes electricity generation, transmission, and distribution as well as natural gas distribution. Entergy focuses on operational excellence with an emphasis on safety, reliability, customer service, sustainability, cost efficiency, risk management, and engaged employees. Entergy also continually seeks opportunities to grow its utility business to benefit all stakeholders and to optimize its portfolio of assets in an ever-dynamic market through periodic buy, build, hold, or disposal decisions. To accomplish this, Entergy has established strategic imperatives for each business segment. For the Utility, the strategic imperative is to modernize its operations, maintain reliability, and better serve its customers while growing the business. For Entergy Wholesale Commodities, the strategic imperative is to continue to manage the risk of its operating portfolio as Entergy completes its exit from the merchant power business.

The Utility business segment includes five wholly-owned retail electric utility subsidiaries: Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas. These companies generate, transmit, distribute and sell electric power to retail and wholesale customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans also provide natural gas utility services to customers in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and New Orleans, Louisiana, respectively. Also included in the Utility is System Energy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation that owns or leases 90 percent of Grand Gulf. System Energy sells its power and capacity from Grand Gulf at wholesale to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans. The five retail utility subsidiaries are each regulated by the FERC and by state utility commissions, or, in the case of Entergy New Orleans, the City Council. System Energy is regulated by the FERC because all of its transactions are at wholesale. The overall generation portfolio of the Utility, which relies heavily on natural gas and nuclear generation, is consistent with Entergy’s strong support for the environment.

As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, the Utility operating companies provided retail electric and gas service to customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, as follows:

The electric energy sales of the Utility operating companies are subject to seasonal fluctuations, with the peak sales period normally occurring during the third quarter of each year. On July ~~21, 2016,~~20, 2017, Entergy reached a ~~2016~~2017 peak demand of ~~21,387~~21,671 MWh, compared to the ~~2015~~2016 peak of ~~21,730~~21,387 MWh recorded on July ~~29, 2015.~~21, 2016. Selected electric energy sales data is shown in the table below:

The following table illustrates the Utility operating companies’ ~~2016~~2017 combined electric sales volume as a percentage of total electric sales volume, and ~~2016~~2017 combined electric revenues as a percentage of total ~~2016~~2017 electric revenue, each by customer class.

Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana provide both electric power and natural gas to retail customers. Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana sold ~~10,102,437~~9,745,874 and ~~6,288,105~~6,017,174 Mcf, respectively, of natural gas to retail customers in ~~2016.~~2017. In ~~2016,~~2017, 99% of Entergy Louisiana’s operating revenue was derived from the electric utility business, and only 1% from the natural gas distribution business. For Entergy New Orleans, 88% of operating revenue was derived from the electric utility business and 12% from the natural gas distribution business in ~~2016.~~2017.

Following is data concerning Entergy New Orleans’s ~~2016~~2017 retail operating revenue sources.

Each Utility operating company regularly participates in retail rate proceedings. The status of material retail rate proceedings is described in Note 2 to the financial statements. Certain aspects of the Utility operating companies’ retail rate mechanisms are discussed below.

Entergy Arkansas’s rate schedules include an energy cost recovery rider to recover fuel and purchased power costs in monthly bills. The rider utilizes prior calendar year energy costs and projected energy sales for the twelve-month period commencing on April 1 of each year to develop an energy cost rate, which is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery, including carrying charges, of the energy cost for the prior calendar year. The energy cost recovery rider tariff also allows an interim rate request depending upon the level of over- or under-recovery of fuel and purchased energy costs. In December 2007 the APSC issued an order stating that Entergy Arkansas’s energy cost recovery rider will remain in effect, and any future termination of the rider would be subject to eighteen months advance notice by the APSC, which would occur following notice and hearing.

Entergy Louisiana’s gas rates include a purchased gas adjustment clause based on estimated gas costs for the billing month adjusted by a surcharge or credit that arises from an annual reconciliation of fuel costs incurred with fuel cost revenues billed to customers, including carrying charges.

To help stabilize retail gas costs, Entergy Louisiana received approval from the LPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility for its gas purchased for resale through the use of financial instruments. Entergy Louisiana hedges approximately one-half of the projected natural gas volumes used to serve its natural gas customers for November through March. The hedge quantity is reviewed on an annual basis.

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

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy Louisiana’s filings to recover storm-related costs.

In March 2016 the LPSC opened two dockets to examine, on a generic basis, issues that it identified in connection with its review of Cleco Corporation’s acquisition by third party investors. The first docket is captioned “In re: Investigation of double leveraging issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities,” and the second is captioned “In re: Investigation of tax structure issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities.” In April 2016 the LPSC clarified that the concerns giving rise to the two dockets arose as a result of its review of the structure of the recently-approved Cleco-Macquarie transaction and that the specific intent of the directives is to seek more information regarding intra-corporate debt financing of a utility’s capital structure as well as the use of investment tax credits to mitigate the tax obligation at the parent level of a consolidated entity. No schedule has been set for either docket, and limited discovery has occurred.

Entergy Mississippi’s rate schedules include energy cost recovery riders to recover fuel and purchased power costs. The energy cost rate for each calendar year is redetermined annually and includes a true-up adjustment reflecting the over-recovery or under-recovery of the energy costs as of the 12-month period ended September 30. Entergy Mississippi’s fuel cost recoveries are subject to annual audits conducted pursuant to the authority of the MPSC.

To help stabilize electricity costs, Entergy Mississippi received approval from the MPSC to hedge its exposure to natural gas price volatility through the use of financial instruments. Entergy Mississippi hedges approximately one-third of the projected exposure to natural gas price changes for the gas used to serve its native electric load for all months of the year. The hedge quantity is reviewed on an annual basis.

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of proceedings regarding recovery of Entergy Mississippi’s storm-related costs.

In August 2012 the MPSC opened inquiries to review whether the current formulaic methodology used to calculate the return on common equity in both Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan and Mississippi Power Company’s annual formula rate plan was still appropriate or could be improved to better serve the public interest. The intent of this inquiry and review was for informational purposes only; the evaluation of any recommendations for changes to the existing methodology would take place in a general rate case or in the existing formula rate plan docket. In March 2013 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed its consultant’s report which noted the return on common equity estimation methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company are commonly used throughout the electric utility industry. The report suggested ways in which the methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company might be improved, but did not recommend specific changes in the return on common equity formulas

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

Entergy New Orleans’s gas rate schedules include a purchased gas adjustment to reflect estimated gas costs for the billing month, adjusted by a surcharge or credit similar to that included in the electric fuel adjustment clause, including carrying charges. In October 2005 the City Council approved modification of the current gas cost collection mechanism effective November 2005 in order to address concerns regarding its fluctuations, particularly during the winter heating season. The modifications are intended to minimize fluctuations in gas rates during the winter months.

To help stabilize gas costs, Entergy New Orleans seeks approval annually from the City Council to continue implementation of its natural gas hedging program consistent with the City Council’s stated policy objectives. The program uses financial instruments to hedge exposure to volatility in the wholesale price of natural gas purchased to serve Entergy New Orleans gas customers. Entergy New Orleans hedges up to 25% of actual gas sales made during the winter months.

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

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

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of Entergy New Orleans’s efforts to recover storm-related costs.

Entergy Texas’s rate schedules include a fixed fuel factor to recover fuel and purchased power costs, including interest, that are not included in base rates. Semi-annual revisions of the fixed fuel factor are made in March and September based on the market price of natural gas and changes in fuel mix. The amounts collected under Entergy Texas’s fixed fuel factor and any interim surcharge or refund are subject to fuel reconciliation proceedings before the PUCT. The PUCT fuel cost proceedings are discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements.

At the PUCT’s April 2013 open meeting, the PUCT Commissioners discussed their view that a purchased power capacity rider was good public policy. The PUCT issued an order in May 2013 adopting the rule allowing for a purchased power capacity rider, subject to an offsetting adjustment for load growth. The rule, as adopted, also includes a process for obtaining pre-approval by the PUCT of purchased power agreements. Entergy Texas has not exercised the option to recover its capacity costs under the new rider mechanism, but will continue to evaluate the benefits of utilizing the new rider to recover future capacity costs.

In June 2009, a law was enacted in Texas that required Entergy Texas to cease all activities relating to Entergy Texas’s transition to competition. The law allows Entergy Texas to remain a part of the SERC Region, although it does not prevent Entergy Texas from joining another power region. The law provides that proceedings to certify a power region that Entergy Texas belongs to as a qualified power region can be initiated by the PUCT, or on motion by another party, when the conditions supporting such a proceeding exist. Under the law, the PUCT may not approve a transition to competition plan for Entergy Texas until the expiration of four years from the PUCT’s certification of Entergy Texas’s power region.

The law also contains provisions that allow Entergy Texas to take advantage of a cost recovery mechanism that permits annual filings for the recovery of reasonable and necessary expenditures for transmission infrastructure improvement and changes in wholesale transmission charges. This mechanism was previously available to other non-ERCOT Texas utility companies, but not to Entergy Texas.

The law further amended already existing law that had required Entergy Texas to propose for PUCT approval a tariff to allow eligible customers the ability to contract for competitive generation. The amending language in the law provides, among other things, that: 1) the tariff shall not be implemented in a manner that harms the sustainability or competitiveness of manufacturers who choose not to participate in the tariff; 2) Entergy Texas shall “purchase competitive generation service, selected by the customer, and provide the generation at retail to the customer”; and 3) Entergy Texas shall provide and price transmission service and ancillary services under that tariff at a rate that is unbundled from its cost of service. The law directs that the PUCT may not issue an order on the tariff that is contrary to an applicable decision, rule, or policy statement of a federal regulatory agency having jurisdiction.

In September 2011 the PUCT adopted a proposed rule implementing a distribution cost recovery factor to recover capital and capital-related costs related to distribution infrastructure. The distribution cost recovery factor permits utilities once per year to implement an increase or decrease in rates above or below amounts reflected in base rates to reflect depreciation expense, federal income tax and other taxes, and return on investment. The distribution cost recovery factor rider may be changed a maximum of four times between base rate ~~cases, and expires in September 2019, unless otherwise extended by the Texas Legislature.~~cases.

Entergy Arkansas holds exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 308 incorporated cities and towns in Arkansas. These franchises are unlimited in duration and continue unless the municipalities purchase the utility property. In Arkansas franchises are considered to be contracts and, therefore, are terminable pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement and applicable statutes.

Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 175 incorporated municipalities and in the unincorporated areas of approximately 59 parishes of Louisiana. Entergy Louisiana holds non-exclusive franchises to provide natural gas service to customers in the City of Baton Rouge and in East Baton Rouge Parish. Municipal franchise agreement terms range from 25 to 60 years while parish franchise terms range from 25 to 99 years.

Entergy Mississippi has received from the MPSC certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide electric service to areas within 45 counties, including a number of municipalities, in western Mississippi. Under Mississippi statutory law, such certificates are exclusive. Entergy Mississippi may continue to serve in such municipalities upon payment of a statutory franchise fee, regardless of whether an original municipal franchise is still in existence.

Entergy New Orleans provides electric and gas service in the City of New Orleans pursuant to indeterminate permits set forth in city ordinances. These ordinances contain a continuing option for the City of New Orleans to purchase Entergy New Orleans’s electric and gas utility properties.

Entergy Texas holds a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PUCT to provide electric service to areas within approximately 27 counties in eastern Texas, and holds non-exclusive franchises to provide electric service in approximately 68 incorporated municipalities. Entergy Texas typically obtains 25-year franchise agreements as existing agreements expire. Entergy Texas’s electric franchises expire during ~~2017-2058.~~2018-2058.

The business of System Energy is limited to wholesale power sales. It has no distribution franchises.

The total capability of the generating stations owned and leased by the Utility operating companies and System Energy as of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, is indicated below:

Summer peak load for the Utility has averaged ~~21,566~~21,533 MW over the previous decade.

The Utility operating companies’ load and capacity projections are reviewed periodically to assess the need and timing for additional generating capacity and interconnections. These reviews consider existing and projected demand, the availability and price of power, the location of new load, the economy, environmental regulations, public policy goals, and the age and condition of Entergy’s existing infrastructure.

The Utility operating companies’ long-term resource strategy ~~the “Portfolio~~(Portfolio Transformation ~~Strategy,”~~Strategy) calls for the bulk of capacity needs to be met through long-term resources, whether owned or contracted. Over the past decade, the Portfolio Transformation Strategy has resulted in the addition of about 6,800 MW of new long-term resources and the deactivation of over ~~4,800~~5,200 MW of legacy generation. As MISO market participants, the Utility operating companies also participate in MISO’s Day Ahead and Real Time Energy and Ancillary Services markets to economically dispatch generation and purchase energy to serve customers reliably and at the lowest reasonable cost.

The Utility operating companies from time to time issue requests for proposals (RFP) to procure supply-side resources from sources other than the spot market to meet the unique regional needs of the Utility operating companies. The RFPs issued by the Utility operating companies have sought resources needed to meet near-term MISO reliability requirements as well as longer-term requirements through a broad range of wholesale power products, including limited-term (1 to 3 years) and long-term contractual products and asset acquisitions. The RFP process has resulted in selections or acquisitions, including, among other things:

The RFP process has also resulted in the selection, or confirmation of the economic merits of, long-term purchased power agreements (PPAs), including, among others:

In June 2016, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Louisiana, issued ~~the~~an RFP for ~~Long-Term Renewable Generation Resources. This~~long-term renewable generation resources. The RFP iswas seeking up to 200 MW of renewable resources ~~beginning as early as June 2018 and as late as June 1, 2020,~~ that ~~can~~could provide energy, fuel diversity, and other benefits to customers. Two proposals were placed in the primary selection list and the transactions are currently in negotiations.

In July 2016, Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy New Orleans, issued ~~the~~an RFP for ~~Long-Term Renewable Generation Resources. This~~long-term renewable generation resources. The RFP iswas seeking up to 20 MW of renewable resources ~~beginning as early as June 2018 and as late as June 1, 2020~~ that ~~can~~could provide increased depth and diversity to ~~its~~Entergy New Orleans’s generation resource portfolio. ~~This RFP includes~~In May 2017, Entergy New Orleans selected three proposals, including a 5 MW self-build option for an aggregated solar photovoltaic resource located within Orleans Parish, Louisiana. In October 2017, Entergy New Orleans filed an application seeking City Council approval for the self-build option, which is pending before the City Council. Following unsuccessful negotiations related to the other proposals selected in May 2017, Entergy New Orleans suspended negotiations in November 2017 and invited bidders to re-submit proposals with current information. From these submissions, in January 2018, Entergy New Orleans selected three proposals with an anticipated total capacity of 90 MW. The updated proposals selected are in addition to the self-build option.

The Utility operating companies have also made resource acquisitions outside of the RFP process, including Entergy Mississippi’s January 2006 acquisition of the 480 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Attala power plant; Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s March 2008 acquisition of the 322 MW, simple-cycle, gas-fired Calcasieu Generating Facility; Entergy Louisiana’s April 2011 acquisition of the 580 MW, combined-cycle, gas-fired Acadia Energy Center Unit 2; and Entergy Arkansas’s (Power Block 2), Entergy Louisiana’s (Power Blocks 3 and 4), and Entergy New Orleans’s (Power Block 1) March 2016 acquisitions of the 1,980 MW (summer rating), natural gas-fired, combined-cycle gas turbine Union Power Station power blocks, each rated at 495 MW (summer rating). The Utility operating companies have also entered into various limited- and long-term contracts in recent years as a result of bilateral negotiations.

The Washington Parish Energy Center is a 361 MW natural gas-fired peaking power plant under advanced development approximately 60 miles north of New Orleans on a partially developed site Calpine has owned since 2001. This simple-cycle power plant is proposed to be developed pursuant to an agreement with Entergy Louisiana, which will purchase the plant upon completion in 2021 for a fixed payment to reimburse construction costs plus an associated premium. In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC seeking certification of the plant. The application is pending.

The Utility operating companies’ generating units are interconnected by a transmission system operating at various voltages up to 500 kV. These generating units consist primarily of steam-electric production facilities and are provided dispatch instructions by MISO. Entergy’s Utility operating companies are MISO market participants and are interconnected with many neighboring utilities. MISO is an essential link in the safe, cost-effective delivery of electric power across all or parts of 15 U.S. states and the Canadian province of Manitoba. As a Regional Transmission Organization, MISO assures consumers of unbiased regional grid management and open access to the transmission

As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy New Orleans distributed and transported natural gas for distribution within New Orleans, Louisiana, through approximately 2,500 miles of gas pipeline. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, the gas properties of Entergy Louisiana, which are located in and around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, were not material to Entergy Louisiana’s financial position.

The Utility operating companies’ generating stations are generally located on properties owned in fee simple. Most of the substations and transmission and distribution lines are constructed on private property or public rights-of-way pursuant to easements, servitudes, or appropriate franchises. Some substation properties are owned in fee simple. The Utility operating companies generally have the right of eminent domain, whereby they may perfect title to, or secure easements or servitudes on, private property for their utility operations.

Substantially all of the physical properties and assets owned by Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy New Orleans, Entergy Texas, and System Energy are subject to the liens of mortgages securing bonds issued by those companies. The Lewis Creek generating station is owned by GSG&T, Inc., a subsidiary of Entergy Texas, and is not subject to its mortgage lien. Lewis Creek is leased to and operated by Entergy Texas.

The sources of generation and average fuel cost per kWh for the Utility operating companies and System Energy for the years ~~2014-2016~~2015-2017 were:

Actual ~~2016~~2017 and projected ~~2017~~2018 sources of generation for the Utility operating companies and System Energy, including certain power purchases from affiliates under life of unit power purchase agreements, including the Unit Power Sales Agreement, are:

The Utility operating companies have long-term firm and short-term interruptible gas contracts for both supply and transportation. Over 50% of the Utility operating companies’ power plants maintain some level of long-term firm transportation. Short-term contracts and spot-market purchases satisfy additional gas requirements. Entergy Texas owns a gas storage facility that provides reliable and flexible natural gas service to certain generating stations.

Many factors, including wellhead deliverability, storage, pipeline capacity, and demand requirements of end users, influence the availability and price of natural gas supplies for power plants. Demand is tied to weather conditions as well as to the prices and availability of other energy sources. Pursuant to federal and state regulations, gas supplies to power plants may be interrupted during periods of shortage. To the extent natural gas supplies are disrupted or natural gas prices significantly increase, the Utility operating companies will use alternate fuels, such as oil, or rely to a larger extent on coal, nuclear generation, and purchased power.

Entergy Arkansas has committed to ~~five~~eight one- to three-year and two spot contracts that will supply approximately 85% of the total coal supply needs in ~~2017.~~2018. These contracts are staggered in term so that not all contracts have to be renewed the same year. The remaining 15% of total coal requirements will be satisfied by contracts with a term of less than one year. Based on continued improved Powder River Basin (PRB) coal deliveries by rail and the high cost of alternate sources and modes of transportation, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Entergy Arkansas during ~~2017.~~2018. Coal will be transported to Arkansas via an existing transportation agreement that is expected to provide all of Entergy Arkansas’s rail transportation requirements for ~~2017.~~2018.

Entergy Louisiana has committed to five one- to three-year contracts that will supply approximately ~~all~~90% of Nelson Unit 6 coal needs in ~~2017.~~2018. If needed, additional PRB coal will be purchased through contracts with a term of less than one year to provide the remaining supply needs. For the same reasons as for Entergy Arkansas’s plants, no alternative coal consumption is expected at Nelson Unit 6 during ~~2017.~~2018. Coal will be transported to Nelson primarily via ~~a new~~an existing transportation agreement that ~~begins in 2017 and~~ is expected to provide ~~the majority~~all of Entergy Louisiana’s rail transportation requirements for ~~2017.~~2018.

For the year ~~2016,~~2017, coal transportation delivery to Entergy ~~Arkansas- and~~Arkansas-and Entergy Louisiana-operated coal-fired units was adequate ~~and it~~for the majority of the year but experienced some delays in the fourth quarter of 2017. It is expected that delivery times will improve in ~~2017 will continue to be consistent through 2017.~~2018. Both Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana control a sufficient number of railcars to satisfy the rail transportation requirement.

The operator of Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3, Louisiana Generating, LLC, has advised Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas that it has adequate rail car and barge capacity to meet the volumes of PRB coal requested for ~~2017.~~2018. Entergy Louisiana’s and Entergy Texas’s coal nomination requests to Big Cajun 2 - Unit 3 are made on an annual basis.

The nuclear fuel cycle consists of the following:

The Registrant Subsidiaries that own nuclear plants, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, are responsible through a shared regulated uranium pool for contracts to acquire nuclear material to be used in fueling Entergy’s Utility nuclear units. These companies own the materials and services in this shared regulated uranium pool on a pro rata fractional basis determined by the nuclear generation capability of each company. Any liabilities for obligations of the pooled contracts are on a several but not joint basis. The shared regulated uranium pool maintains inventories of nuclear materials during the various stages of processing. The Registrant Subsidiaries purchase enriched uranium hexafluoride for their nuclear plant reload requirements at the average inventory cost from the shared regulated uranium pool. Entergy Operations, Inc. contracts separately for the fabrication of nuclear fuel as agent on behalf of each of the Registrant Subsidiaries that owns a nuclear plant. All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and the owner of a nuclear power plant.

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, the nuclear units in both the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities segments have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable or fixed prices through most of ~~2017~~2018 or beyond. The nuclear fuel supply portfolio for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment is being adjusted to reflect reduced overall requirements related to the ~~pending sale of the FitzPatrick plant and the~~ planned permanent shutdowns of the

The effects of market price changes may be reduced and deferred by risk management strategies, such as negotiation of floor and ceiling amounts for long-term contracts, buying for inventory or entering into forward physical contracts at fixed prices when Entergy believes it is appropriate and useful. Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S.

Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. There are fewer of these providers than for uranium. For conversion and enrichment services, like uranium, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures as needed to ensure supply of enriched uranium for the reliable fabrication of nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the effective performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel, therefore, Entergy provides additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight for the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy each have made arrangements to lease nuclear fuel and related equipment and services. The lessors, which are consolidated in the financial statements of Entergy and the applicable Registrant Subsidiary, finance the acquisition and ownership of nuclear fuel through credit agreements and

Entergy New Orleans has several suppliers of natural gas. Its system is interconnected with three interstate and three intrastate pipelines. Entergy New Orleans has a “no-notice” service gas purchase contract with ~~Atmos~~Centerpoint Energy Services which guarantees Entergy New Orleans gas delivery at specific delivery points and at any volume within the minimum and maximum set forth in the contract amounts. The ~~Atmos~~Centerpoint Energy Service gas supply is transported to Entergy New Orleans pursuant to a transportation service agreement with Gulf South Pipeline Co. This service is subject to FERC-approved rates. Entergy New Orleans also makes interruptible spot market purchases.

Entergy Louisiana purchased natural gas for resale in ~~2016~~2017 under a firm contract from Sequent Energy Management L.P. The gas is delivered through a combination of intrastate and interstate pipelines.

As a result of the implementation of FERC-mandated interstate pipeline restructuring in 1993, curtailments of interstate gas supply could occur if Entergy Louisiana’s or Entergy New Orleans’s suppliers failed to perform their obligations to deliver gas under their supply agreements. Gulf South Pipeline Co. could curtail transportation capacity only in the event of pipeline system constraints.

State or local regulatory authorities, as described above, regulate the retail rates of the Utility operating companies. The FERC regulates wholesale sales of electricity rates and interstate transmission of electricity, including System Energy’s sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of federal regulation proceedings.

Prior to each operating company’s termination of participation in the System Agreement (Entergy Arkansas in December 2013, Entergy Mississippi in November 2015, and Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas each in August 2016), the Utility operating companies engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which was a rate schedule approved by the FERC. Under the terms of the System Agreement, generating capacity and other power resources were jointly operated by the Utility operating companies that were participating in the System Agreement. The System Agreement provided, among other things, that parties having generating reserves greater than their allocated share of reserves (long companies) would receive payments from those parties having generating reserves that were less than their allocated share of reserves (short companies). Such payments were at amounts sufficient to cover certain of the long companies’ costs for intermediate and peaking oil/gas-fired generation, including operating expenses, fixed charges on debt, dividend requirements on preferred equity, and a fair rate of return on common equity investment. Under the System Agreement, the rates used to compensate long companies were based on costs associated with the long companies’ steam electric generating units fueled by oil or gas and having an annual average heat rate above 10,000 Btu/kWh. In addition, for all energy exchanged among the Utility operating companies under the System Agreement, the companies purchasing exchange energy were required to pay the cost of fuel consumed in generating such energy plus a charge to cover other associated costs. Entergy Arkansas terminated its participation in the System Agreement in December 2013. Entergy Mississippi terminated its participation in the System Agreement in November 2015. The System Agreement terminated with respect to its remaining participants in August 2016.

Although the System Agreement has terminated, certain of the Utility operating companies’ and their retail regulators are pursuing litigation involving the System Agreement at the FERC and in federal courts. The proceedings include

On December 19, 2013, the Utility operating companies integrated into the MISO RTO. Although becoming a member of MISO does not affect the ownership by the Utility operating companies of their transmission facilities or the responsibility for maintaining those facilities, MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. MISO also exercises functional control of transmission planning and congestion management and provides schedules and pricing for the commitment and dispatch of generation that is offered into MISO’s markets, as well as pricing for load that bids into the markets. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a bilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. Each Utility operating company has its own transmission pricing zone and a formula rate template (included as Attachment O to the MISO tariff) used to establish transmission rates within MISO. The terms and conditions of the MISO tariff, including provisions related to the design and implementation of wholesale markets and the allocation of transmission upgrade costs, are subject to regulation by the FERC.

System Energy recovers costs related to its interest in Grand Gulf through rates charged to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans for capacity and energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement (described below). In December 1995, System Energy commenced a rate proceeding at the FERC. In July 2001 the rate proceeding became final, with the FERC approving a prospective 10.94% return on equity. In 1998 the FERC approved requests by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi to accelerate a portion of their Grand Gulf purchased power obligations. Entergy Arkansas’s and Entergy Mississippi’s acceleration of Grand Gulf purchased

The Unit Power Sales Agreement allocates capacity, energy, and the related costs from System Energy’s ownership and leasehold interests in Grand Gulf to Entergy Arkansas (36%), Entergy Louisiana (14%), Entergy Mississippi (33%), and Entergy New Orleans (17%). Each of these companies is obligated to make payments to System Energy for its entitlement of capacity and energy on a full cost-of-service basis regardless of the quantity of energy delivered. Payments under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are System Energy’s only source of operating revenue. The financial condition of System Energy depends upon the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf and the receipt of such payments. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans generally recover payments made under the Unit Power Sales Agreement through rates charged to their customers.

In the case of Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana, payments are also recovered through sales of electricity from their respective retained shares of Grand Gulf. Under a settlement agreement entered into with the APSC in 1985 and amended in 1988, Entergy Arkansas retains 22% of its 36% share of Grand Gulf-related costs and recovers the remaining 78% of its share in rates. In the event that Entergy Arkansas is not able to sell its retained share to third parties, it may sell such energy to its retail customers at a price equal to its avoided cost, which is currently less than Entergy Arkansas’s cost from its retained share. Entergy Arkansas has life-of-resources purchased power agreements with Entergy Louisiana and Entergy New Orleans that sell a portion of the output of Entergy Arkansas’s retained share of Grand Gulf to those companies, with the remainder of the retained share being sold to Entergy Mississippi through a separate life-of-resources purchased power agreement. In a series of LPSC orders, court decisions, and agreements from late 1985 to mid-1988, Entergy Louisiana was granted rate relief with respect to costs associated with Entergy

The Availability Agreement among System Energy and Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans was entered into in 1974 in connection with the financing by System Energy of Grand Gulf. The Availability Agreement provides that System Energy make available to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans all capacity and energy available from System Energy’s share of Grand Gulf.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans also agreed severally to pay System Energy monthly for the right to receive capacity and energy from Grand Gulf in amounts that (when added to any amounts received by System Energy under the Unit Power Sales Agreement) would at least equal System Energy’s total operating expenses for Grand Gulf (including depreciation at a specified rate and expenses incurred in a permanent shutdown of Grand Gulf) and interest charges.

The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement are fixed as follows: Entergy Arkansas - 17.1%; Entergy Louisiana - 26.9%; Entergy Mississippi - 31.3%; and Entergy New Orleans - 24.7%. The allocation percentages under the Availability Agreement would remain in effect and would govern payments made under such agreement in

System Energy has assigned its rights to payments and advances from Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans under the Availability Agreement as security for its one outstanding series of first mortgage bonds. In these assignments, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans further agreed that, in the event they were prohibited by governmental action from making payments under the Availability Agreement (for example, if the FERC reduced or disallowed such payments as constituting excessive rates), they would then make subordinated advances to System Energy in the same amounts and at the same times as the prohibited payments. System Energy would not be allowed to repay these subordinated advances so long as it remained in default under the related indebtedness or in other similar circumstances.

Each of the assignment agreements relating to the Availability Agreement provides that Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans will make payments directly to System Energy. However, if there is an event of default, those payments must be made directly to the holders of indebtedness that are the beneficiaries of such assignment agreements. The payments must be made pro rata according to the amount of the respective obligations secured.

The obligations of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans to make payments under the Availability Agreement are subject to the receipt and continued effectiveness of all necessary regulatory approvals. Sales of capacity and energy under the Availability Agreement would require that the Availability Agreement be submitted to the FERC for approval with respect to the terms of such sale. No such filing with the FERC has been made because sales of capacity and energy from Grand Gulf are being made pursuant to the Unit Power Sales Agreement. If, for any reason, sales of capacity and energy are made in the future pursuant to the Availability Agreement, the jurisdictional portions of the Availability Agreement would be submitted to the FERC for approval.

The Availability Agreement may be terminated, amended, or modified by mutual agreement of the parties thereto, without further consent of any assignees or other creditors.

System Energy and Entergy Corporation have entered into the Capital Funds Agreement, whereby Entergy Corporation has agreed to supply System Energy with sufficient capital to (i) maintain System Energy’s equity capital at an amount equal to a minimum of 35% of its total capitalization (excluding short-term debt) and (ii) permit the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf and pay in full all indebtedness for borrowed money of System Energy when due.

Entergy Corporation has entered into various supplements to the Capital Funds Agreement. System Energy has assigned its rights under such a supplement as security for its one outstanding series of first mortgage bonds. The supplement provides that permitted indebtedness for borrowed money incurred by System Energy in connection with the financing of Grand Gulf may be secured by System Energy’s rights under the Capital Funds Agreement on a pro rata basis (except for the Specific Payments, as defined below). In addition, in the supplements to the Capital Funds Agreement relating to the specific indebtedness being secured, Entergy Corporation has agreed to make cash capital

The Capital Funds Agreement may be terminated, amended, or modified by mutual agreement of the parties thereto, upon obtaining the consent, if required, of those holders of System Energy’s indebtedness then outstanding who have received the assignments of the Capital Funds Agreement. No such consent would be required to terminate the Capital Funds Agreement or the supplement thereto at this time.

Entergy Services, a corporation wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation, provides management, administrative, accounting, legal, engineering, and other services primarily to the Utility operating companies, but also provides services to Entergy Wholesale Commodities. Entergy Operations is also wholly-owned by Entergy Corporation and provides nuclear management, operations and maintenance services under contract for ANO, River Bend, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, subject to the owner oversight of Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, respectively. Entergy Services and Entergy Operations provide their services to the Utility operating companies and System Energy on an “at cost” basis, pursuant to cost allocation methodologies for these service agreements that were approved by the FERC.

Effective December 31, 2007, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. completed a jurisdictional separation into two vertically integrated utility companies, one operating under the sole retail jurisdiction of the PUCT, Entergy Texas, and the other

Entergy Texas purchases from Entergy Louisiana pursuant to a life-of-unit purchased power agreement a 42.5% share of capacity and energy from the 70% of River Bend subject to retail regulation. Entergy Texas was allocated a share of River Bend’s nuclear and environmental liabilities that is identical to the share of the plant’s output purchased by Entergy Texas under the purchased power agreement. In connection with the termination of the System Agreement effective August 31, 2016, the purchased power agreements that were put in place for certain legacy units at the time of the jurisdictional separation were also terminated at that time. See Note 2 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the purchased power agreements.

On October 1, 2015, the businesses formerly conducted by Entergy Louisiana (Old Entergy Louisiana) and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) were combined into a single public utility. In order to effect the business combination, under the Texas Business Organizations Code (TXBOC), Old Entergy Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary, Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (New Entergy Louisiana), and New Entergy Louisiana assumed the liabilities of Old Entergy Louisiana, in a transaction regarded as a merger under the TXBOC. Under the TXBOC, Old Entergy Gulf States Louisiana allocated substantially all of its assets to a new subsidiary (New Entergy Gulf States Louisiana) and New Entergy Gulf States

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

The Registrant Subsidiaries’ ratios of earnings to fixed charges and ratios of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred dividends or distributions pursuant to Item 503 of SEC Regulation S-K are as follows:

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants, located in the northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced by its operating plants to wholesale customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities revenues are primarily derived from sales of energy and generation capacity from these plants. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also provides operations and management services, including decommissioning services, to nuclear power plants owned by other utilities in the United States. Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of interests in non-nuclear power plants that sell the electric power produced by those plants to wholesale customers.

On December 29, 2014, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Vermont Yankee plant was removed from the grid, after 42 years of operations. The decision to close and decommission Vermont Yankee, which was announced in August 2013, ~~as a result of~~was due to numerous issues including sustained low natural gas and wholesale energy prices, the high cost structure of the plant, and lack of a market structure that adequately compensates merchant nuclear plants for their environmental and fuel diversity benefits in the Northeast region. In November 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell 100% of ~~the~~its membership interest in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC to a subsidiary of ~~NorthStar Group Services, Inc. (NorthStar).~~NorthStar. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee is the owner of the Vermont Yankee plant. The sale of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to NorthStar will include the transfer of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee’s nuclear decommissioning trust fund and the asset retirement obligation for spent fuel management and decommissioning of the plant. Entergy plans to transfer all spent nuclear fuel to dry cask storage by the end of 2018 ~~subject to obtaining necessary regulatory approvals,~~ in advance of the planned transaction close. Under the sale ~~agreement~~ and related agreements to be entered into at the closing, NorthStar will commit to initiate decommissioning and site restoration by 2021 and complete those activities, along with ~~the~~ partial restoration of the Vermont Yankee site, with the exception of the independent spent fuel storage installation and ~~the~~ switchyard, by 2030. The original completion date, as outlined in Entergy’s Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report filed with the NRC, was 2075. The transaction is contingent upon certain closing conditions, including approval by the NRC; approval by the State of Vermont Public ~~Service Board,~~Utility Commission, including approval of site restoration standards that will be proposed as part of the transaction; the transfer of all spent nuclear fuel to dry fuel storage on the independent spent fuel storage installation; and that the market value of the ~~fund~~ assets held in the decommissioning trust fund for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, less the hypothetical income tax on the aggregate unrealized net gain of such ~~fund~~ assets at closing, is equal to or exceeds $451.95 million, subject to adjustments.

In October 2015, Entergy determined that it would close the FitzPatrick plant ~~earlier than expected. The original expectation was to shut down the FitzPatrick plant~~ at the end of its fuel cycle in January ~~2017, but in~~2017. In August 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell the FitzPatrick plant to ~~Exelon, and the sale is expected to close in the first half of 2017.~~Exelon. The transaction iswas contingent upon, among other things, the expiration of the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals from the FERC, the NRC, and the Public Service Commission of the State of New York (NYPSC), and the receipt of a private letter ruling from the IRS. ~~NRC approval has not yet been received, but all other necessary regulatory approvals have been received.~~ Because certain specified conditions were satisfied in November 2016,

In October 2015, Entergy determined that it would close the Pilgrim plant. The decision came after management’s extensive analysis of the economics and operating life of the plant following the NRC’s decision in September 2015 to place the plant in its “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column” (Column 4) of its Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. The Pilgrim plant is expected to cease operations on May 31, 2019, after refueling in the spring of 2017 and operating through the end of that fuel cycle.

In December 2015, Entergy Wholesale Commodities closed on the sale of its 583 MW Rhode Island State Energy Center, ~~(RISEC),~~ in Johnston, Rhode Island. The base sales price, excluding adjustments, was approximately $490 million. Entergy Wholesale Commodities purchased ~~RISEC~~the Rhode Island State Energy Center for $346 million in December 2011.

In December 2016, Entergy announced that it had reached an agreement with Consumers Energy to terminate the existing PPA for the Palisades plant on May 31, 2018. Pursuant to the ~~PPA termination~~ agreement, Consumers Energy ~~will~~would pay Entergy $172 million for the early termination of the PPA. The PPA ~~termination~~amendment agreement iswas subject to regulatory ~~approvals.~~approvals, including approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Separately, ~~and assuming regulatory approvals are obtained for the PPA termination agreement,~~ Entergy ~~intends~~intended to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant permanently on October 1, 2018, after refueling in the spring of 2017 and operating through the end of that fuel cycle. In September 2017 the Michigan Public Service Commission issued an order conditionally approving the PPA amendment transaction, but granting Consumers Energy recovery of only $136.6 million of the $172 million requested early termination payment. As a result, Entergy ~~expects~~and Consumers Energy agreed to ~~enter into a new~~terminate the PPA amendment agreement. Entergy will continue to operate Palisades under the current PPA with Consumers Energy, ~~under which~~instead of shutting down in the fall of 2018 as previously planned. Entergy intends to shut down the Palisades nuclear power plant ~~would continue to operate through October 1, 2018.~~permanently on May 31, 2022.

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

The Indian Point settlement required New York State agencies to issue environmental certifications needed for license renewal and a renewed water discharge permit based on current plant configuration. It also required the New York State Attorney General and Riverkeeper to withdraw their contentions pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). In exchange, Entergy commits to cease commercial operation of Indian Point 2 by April 30, 2020 and Indian Point 3 by April 30, ~~2021, and resolve~~2021. These actions have been completed, all New York ~~State-initiated legal challenges to Indian Point’s operating license renewal. As part of~~State approvals required for the ~~settlement, New York State has agreed~~NRC to issue ~~Indian Point’s water quality certification~~renewed licenses have been granted, and ~~Coastal Zone Management Act consistency certification and to withdraw its objection to license renewal~~the ASLB has terminated proceedings before it following the ~~NRC. New York State also has agreed~~withdrawal of pending contentions. The NRC is not expected to issue renewed licenses earlier than third quarter 2018, as its staff must complete updates to the record on environmental and safety matters (a supplement to the final supplemental environmental impact statement and a ~~water discharge permit, which is required regardless of whether~~supplement to the plant is seeking a renewed NRC license. The shutdowns are conditioned, among other things, upon such actions being taken by New York State. Even without opposition, the NRC license renewal process is expected to continue at least into 2018.final safety evaluation report).

With the settlement concerning Indian Point, Entergy ~~now~~ has announced plans for the disposition of all of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, including the sales of Vermont Yankee and FitzPatrick, and the earlier than previously expected shutdowns of Pilgrim, Palisades, Indian Point 2, and Indian Point 3. See “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” for further discussion.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership of the following nuclear power plants:

In October 2015, Entergy determined that it would close the FitzPatrick plant at the end of the fuel cycle, in January 2017, but in August 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon, and the sale closed in March 2017.

Entergy Wholesale Commodities also includes the ownership of two non-operating nuclear facilities, Big Rock Point in Michigan and Indian Point 1 in New York that were acquired when Entergy purchased the Palisades and Indian Point 2 nuclear plants, respectively. These facilities are in various stages of the decommissioning process.

In April 2007, Entergy submitted to the NRC a joint application to renew the operating licenses for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 for an additional 20 years. The original expiration dates of the NRC operating licenses for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 were September 28, 2013 and December 12, 2015, respectively. Authorization to operate Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 rests on Entergy’s having timely filed a license renewal application that remains pending before the NRC. Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 have now entered their “period of extended operation” after expiration of the plants’ initial license term under “timely renewal,” which is a federal statutory rule of general applicability providing for extension of a license for which a renewal application has been timely filed with the licensing agency until the license renewal process has been completed. The license renewal application for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 qualifies for timely renewal protection because it met NRC regulatory standards for timely filing. The NRC is not expected to issue renewed licenses earlier than third quarter 2018. For additional discussion of the license renewal applications and the settlement with New York State, see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities

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

Entergy Wholesale Commodities includes the ownership, or interests in joint ventures that own, the following non-nuclear power plants:

The Pilgrim plant falls under the authority of the Independent System Operator ~~(ISO)~~ New England (ISO-NE) and the ~~FitzPatrick and~~ Indian Point plants fall under the authority of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). The Palisades plant falls under the authority of the MISO. The primary purpose of ~~ISO New England,~~ISO-NE, NYISO, and MISO is to direct the operations of the major generation and transmission facilities in their respective regions; ensure grid reliability; administer and monitor wholesale electricity markets; and plan for their respective region’s energy needs.

As a wholesale generator, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ core business is selling energy, measured in MWh, to its customers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities enters into forward contracts with its customers and also sells energy in the day ahead or spot markets. ~~In addition to selling the energy produced by its plants,~~ Entergy Wholesale Commodities also sells unforced capacity, which allows load-serving entities to meet specified reserve and related requirements placed on them by the ISOs in their respective areas. Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward physical power contracts consist of contracts to sell energy only, contracts to sell capacity only, and bundled contracts in which it sells both capacity and energy. While the terminology and payment mechanics vary in these contracts, each of these types of contracts requires Entergy Wholesale Commodities to deliver MWh of energy, make capacity available, or both. See “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for additional information regarding these contracts.

As part of the purchase of the Palisades plant in 2007, Entergy executed a 15-year PPA with the seller, Consumers Energy, for 100% of the plant’s output, excluding any future uprates. Under the purchased power agreement, Consumers Energy receives the value of any new environmental credits for the first ten years of the agreement. Palisades and Consumers Energy will share on a 50/50 basis the value of any new environmental credits for years 11 through 15 of the agreement. The environmental credits are defined as benefits from a change in law that causes capability of the plant as of the purchase date to become a tradable attribute (e.g., emission credit, renewable energy credit, environmental

Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ customers for the sale of both energy and capacity from its nuclear plants include retail power providers, utilities, electric power co-operatives, power trading organizations, and other power generation companies. These customers include Consolidated Edison and Consumers Energy, companies from which Entergy purchased plants, and ~~ISO New England,~~ISO-NE, NYISO, and MISO. Substantially all of the credit exposure associated with the planned energy output under contract for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants is with counterparties or their guarantors that have public investment grade credit ratings.

The ~~ISO New England~~ISO-NE and NYISO markets are highly competitive. Entergy Wholesale Commodities has numerous competitors in New England and New York, including generation companies affiliated with regulated utilities, other independent power producers, municipal and co-operative generators, owners of co-generation plants and wholesale power marketers. Entergy Wholesale Commodities is an independent power producer, which means it

Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues and operating income are subject to fluctuations during the year due to seasonal factors, weather conditions, and contract pricing. Refueling outages are generally ~~scheduled for~~in the spring and ~~the~~ fall, and cause volumetric decreases during those seasons. When outdoor and cooling water temperatures are ~~lower,~~low, generally during colder months, Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants operate more efficiently, and consequently, generate more electricity. Many of Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contracts provide for shaped pricing over the course of the year. As a result of these factors, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ revenues are typically higher in the first and third quarters than in the second and fourth quarters.

See “Fuel Supply - Nuclear Fuel” in the Utility portion of Part I, Item 1 for a discussion of the nuclear fuel cycle and markets. Entergy Nuclear Fuels Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, is responsible for contracts to acquire nuclear materials, except for fuel fabrication, for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, while Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. acts as the agent for the purchase of nuclear fuel assembly fabrication services. All contracts for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are between the DOE and each of the nuclear power plant owners.

Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC (ENPM) was formed in 2005 to centralize the power marketing function for Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants. Upon its formation, ENPM entered into long-term power purchase agreements with the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries that own nuclear power plants (generating subsidiaries). As part of a series of agreements, ENPM agreed to assume and/or otherwise service the existing power purchase agreements that were in effect between the generating subsidiaries and their customers. ENPM’s functions include origination of new energy and capacity transactions and generation scheduling.

Entergy Nuclear, Inc. can pursue service agreements with other nuclear power plant owners who seek the advantages of Entergy’s scale and expertise but do not necessarily want to sell their assets. Services provided by either Entergy Nuclear, Inc. or other Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries include engineering, operations and maintenance, fuel procurement, management and supervision, technical support and training, administrative support, and other managerial or technical services required to operate, maintain, and decommission nuclear electric power facilities. Entergy Nuclear, Inc. provided decommissioning services for the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant.

In September 2003, Entergy agreed to provide plant operation support services for the 800 MW Cooper Nuclear Station located near Brownville, Nebraska. The original contract was to expire in 2014 corresponding to the original operating license life of the plant. In 2006 an Entergy subsidiary signed an agreement to provide license renewal services for the Cooper Nuclear Station. The Cooper Nuclear Station received its license renewal from the NRC in November 2010. ~~Entergy continues to provide implementation services for the renewed license.~~ In 2010 an Entergy subsidiary signed an agreement to extend the management support services to Cooper Nuclear Station by 15 years, through January 2029. In 2017 the contract was amended so that it could not be terminated prior to December 21, 2022.

The Federal Power Act provides the FERC the authority to regulate:

The Federal Power Act gives the FERC jurisdiction over the rates charged by System Energy for Grand Gulf capacity and energy provided to Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans and over some of the rates charged by Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Louisiana. The FERC also regulates the provisions of the System Agreement, including the rates, and the provision of transmission service to wholesale market participants. The FERC also regulates the MISO RTO, an independent entity that maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy, capacity, and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. FERC regulation of the MISO RTO includes regulation of the design and implementation of the wholesale markets administered by the MISO RTO, as well as the rates, terms, and conditions of open access transmission service over the member systems and the allocation of costs associated with transmission upgrades.

Entergy Arkansas holds a FERC license that expires in 2053 for two hydroelectric projects totaling 70 MW of capacity.

Entergy Arkansas is subject to regulation by the APSC, which includes the authority to:

Entergy Louisiana’s electric and gas business is subject to regulation by the LPSC as to:

Entergy Mississippi is subject to regulation by the MPSC as to the following:

Entergy Mississippi is also subject to regulation by the APSC as to the certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the Independence Station, which is located in Arkansas.

Entergy New Orleans is subject to regulation by the City Council as to the following:

To the extent authorized by governing legislation, Entergy Texas is subject to the original jurisdiction of the municipal authorities of a number of incorporated cities in Texas with appellate jurisdiction over such matters residing in the PUCT. Entergy Texas is also subject to regulation by the PUCT as to:

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the operation of nuclear plants is heavily regulated by the NRC, which has broad power to impose licensing and safety-related requirements. The NRC has broad authority to impose fines or shut down a unit, or both, depending upon its assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, as owners of all or portions of ANO, River Bend and Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively, and Entergy Operations, as the licensee and operator of these units, are subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC. Entergy subsidiaries in the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment are subject to the NRC’s jurisdiction as the owners and operators of Pilgrim, Indian Point Energy Center, ~~FitzPatrick,~~ Vermont Yankee, and Palisades. Substantial capital expenditures, increased operating expenses, and/or higher decommissioning costs at Entergy’s nuclear plants because of revised safety requirements of the NRC could be required in the future.

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is required, for a specified fee, to construct storage facilities for, and to dispose of, all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste generated by domestic nuclear power reactors. Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have been charged fees for the estimated future disposal costs of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The affected Entergy companies entered into contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is to furnish disposal services at a cost of one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983, plus a one-time fee for generation prior to that date. Entergy Arkansas is the only one of the Utility operating companies that generated electric power with nuclear fuel prior to that date and has a recorded liability as of December 31, ~~2016~~2017 of ~~$181.9~~$183.3 million for the one-time fee. Entergy accepted assignment of the Pilgrim, FitzPatrick and Indian Point 3, Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2, Vermont Yankee, Palisades, and Big Rock Point spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE held by their previous owners. The FitzPatrick spent fuel disposal contract was assigned to Exelon as part of the sale of the plant, completed in March 2017. The previous owners have paid or retained liability for the fees for all generation prior to the purchase dates of those plants. The fees payable to the DOE may be adjusted in the future to assure full recovery. Entergy considers all costs incurred for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, except accrued interest, to be proper components of nuclear fuel expense. Provisions to recover such costs have been or will be made in applications to regulatory authorities for the Utility plants. Entergy’s total spent fuel fees to date, including the one-time fee liability of Entergy Arkansas, have surpassed $1.6 billion (exclusive of amounts relating to Entergy plants that were paid or are owed by prior owners of those plants).

The permanent spent fuel repository in the U.S. has been legislated to be Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing (the DOE filed the license application in June 2008) and, after the license is granted by the NRC, proceed with the repository construction and commencement of receipt of spent fuel. Because the DOE has not begun accepting spent fuel, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts. The DOE continues to delay meeting its obligation. Specific steps were taken to discontinue the Yucca Mountain project, including a motion to the NRC to withdraw the license application with prejudice and the establishment of a commission to develop recommendations for alternative spent fuel storage solutions. In August 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the NRC to continue with the Yucca Mountain license review, but only to the extent of funds previously appropriated by Congress for that purpose and not yet used. ~~This amount of money is~~Although the NRC completed the safety evaluation report for the license review in 2015, the previously appropriated funds are not ~~expected to be~~ sufficient to complete the ~~review.~~review, including required hearings. The government

Following the defunding of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository program, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others sued the government seeking cessation of collection of the one mill per net kWh generated and sold after April 7, 1983 fee. In November 2013 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reset the fee to zero until the DOE complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or Congress enacts an alternative waste disposal plan. In January 2014 the DOE submitted the proposal to Congress under protest, and also filed a petition for rehearing with the D.C. Circuit. The petition for rehearing was denied. The zero spent fuel fee went into effect prospectively in May 2014. Management cannot predict the potential timing or magnitude of future spent fuel fee revisions that may occur.

As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 1998 pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the spent fuel disposal contracts, Entergy’s nuclear owner/licensee subsidiaries have incurred and will continue to incur damages. These subsidiaries have been, and continue to be, involved in litigation to recover the damages caused by the DOE’s delay in performance. Through ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy’s subsidiaries won and collected on judgments against the government totaling over $500 million.

In April 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $29 million in favor of Entergy Arkansas and against the DOE in the second round ANO damages case. Also in April 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $44 million in favor of System Energy and against the DOE in the second round Grand Gulf damages case. In June 2015, Entergy Arkansas and System Energy appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit portions of those decisions relating to cask loading costs. In April 2016 the Federal Circuit issued a decision in both appeals in favor of Entergy Arkansas and System Energy, and remanded the cases back to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In June 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the amount of $49 million in favor of System Energy and against the DOE in the second round Grand Gulf damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in August 2016. In July 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the amount of $31 million in favor of Entergy Arkansas and against the DOE in the second round ANO damages case, and Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in October 2016.

In May 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final partial summary judgment on a portion, $21 million, of the claims in the Palisades case. The DOE did not appeal that decision, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in October 2015.

In December 2015 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $81 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 and Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick in the first round Indian Point 3/FitzPatrick damages case, and Entergy received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016.

In January 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $49 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round Waterford 3 damages case. In April 2016, Entergy Louisiana appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit the portion of that decision relating to cask loading costs. After the ANO and Grand Gulf appeal was rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the Waterford 3 case back to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for decision in accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on cask loading costs. In August 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the Waterford 3 case in the amount of $53 million, and Entergy Louisiana received the payment from the U.S. Treasury in November 2016.

In April 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a partial judgment in the amount of $42 million in favor of Entergy Louisiana and against the DOE in the first round River Bend damages case, reserving the issue of cask loading costs pending resolution of the appeal on the same issues in the Entergy Arkansas and System Energy cases.

In May 2016, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and the DOE entered into a stipulated agreement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the amount of $19 million in favor of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and against the DOE in the second round Vermont Yankee damages case. Entergy received payment from the U.S. Treasury in June 2016.

In September 2016 the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in the Entergy Nuclear Palisades case in the amount of $14 million. Entergy Nuclear Palisades received payment from the U.S. Treasury in January 2017.

In October 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment in the second round Entergy

Management cannot predict the timing or amount of any potential recoveries on other claims filed by Entergy subsidiaries, and cannot predict the timing of any eventual receipt from the DOE of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims damage awards.

Pending DOE acceptance and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the owners of nuclear plants are providing their own spent fuel storage. Storage capability additions using dry casks began operations at Palisades in 1993, at ANO in 1996, at FitzPatrick in 2002, at River Bend in 2005, at Grand Gulf in 2006, at Indian Point and Vermont Yankee in 2008, at Waterford 3 in 2011, and at Pilgrim in 2015. These facilities will be expanded as needed.

Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for ANO, Waterford 3, and Grand Gulf, respectively. In addition, Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas are entitled to recover from customers through electric rates the estimated decommissioning costs for the portion of River Bend subject to retail rate regulation. The collections are deposited in trust funds that can only be used for future decommissioning costs. Entergy periodically reviews and updates the estimated decommissioning costs to reflect inflation and changes in regulatory requirements and technology, and then makes applications to the regulatory authorities to reflect, in rates, the changes in projected decommissioning costs.

In July 2010 the LPSC approved increased decommissioning collections for Waterford 3 and the Louisiana regulated share of River Bend and in December 2010 the PUCT approved increased decommissioning collections for the Texas share of River Bend to address previously identified funding shortfalls. In December ~~2015 the APSC approved increased decommissioning collections for ANO 2 to address an identified shortfall. In December~~ 2016 the APSC ordered continued collections for decommissioning for ANO 2, while finding that ANO 1’s decommissioning was adequately funded without continued collections. In December 2017 the APSC ordered continued collections for decommissioning for ANO 2, and again found that ANO 1’s decommissioning was adequately funded without continued collections. In September 2016 the NRC issued a 20-year operating license renewal for Grand Gulf. In a 2017 filing at the FERC, System Energy stated that with the renewed operating license, Grand Gulf’s decommissioning trust was sufficiently funded, and proposed (among other things) to cease decommissioning collections for Grand Gulf effective October 1, 2017. The FERC accepted the proposal subject to refund, and appointed a settlement judge to oversee settlement negotiations in the case. Entergy currently believes its decommissioning funding will be sufficient for its nuclear plants subject to retail rate regulation, although decommissioning cost inflation and trust fund performance will ultimately determine the adequacy of the funding amounts.

In November 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell 100% of the membership interest in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to a subsidiary of NorthStar. Upon closing of the sale, NorthStar will assume ownership of Vermont Yankee and its decommissioning and site restoration trusts, together with complete responsibility for the facility’s decommissioning and site restoration. The sale is subject to certain closing conditions, including approval from the NRC and the State of Vermont Public ~~Service Board.~~Utility Commission. See Note 9 to the financial statements for further discussion of Vermont Yankee decommissioning costs and see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion of the NorthStar transaction.

~~261~~

In March ~~2016~~2017 filings with the NRC were made for certain Entergy subsidiaries’ nuclear plants reporting on decommissioning funding. Those reports showed that decommissioning funding for each of those nuclear plants met the NRC’s financial assurance requirements.

Additional information with respect to Entergy’s decommissioning costs and decommissioning trust funds is found in Note 9 and Note 16 to the financial statements.

The Price-Anderson Act requires that reactor licensees purchase and maintain the maximum amount of nuclear liability insurance available and participate in an industry assessment program called Secondary Financial Protection in order to protect the public in the event of a nuclear power plant accident. The costs of this insurance are borne by the nuclear power industry. Congress amended and renewed the Price-Anderson Act in 2005 for a term through 2025. The Price-Anderson Act limits the contingent liability for a single nuclear incident to a maximum assessment of approximately $127.3 million per reactor (with 102 nuclear industry reactors currently participating). In the case of a nuclear event in which Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, System Energy, or an Entergy Wholesale Commodities company is liable, protection is afforded through a combination of private insurance and the Secondary Financial Protection program. In addition to this, insurance for property damage, costs of replacement power, and other risks relating to nuclear generating units is also purchased. The Price-Anderson Act and insurance applicable to the nuclear programs of Entergy are discussed in more detail in Note 8 to the financial statements.

The NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process is a program to collect information about plant performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response. The NRC evaluates plant performance by analyzing two distinct inputs: inspection findings resulting from the NRC’s inspection program and performance indicators reported by the licensee. The evaluations result in the placement of each plant in one of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix columns: “licensee response column,” or Column 1, “regulatory response column,” or Column 2, “degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 3, and “multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column,” or Column 4. Plants in Column 1 are subject to normal NRC inspection activities. Plants in Column 2, Column 3, or Column 4 are subject to progressively increasing levels of inspection by the NRC with, in general, progressively increasing levels of associated costs. Waterford 3, River Bend, ~~FitzPatrick,~~ Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, and Palisades are in Column 1. Grand Gulf is in Column 2. ANO 1 and 2 are in Column 4, and are subject to an extensive set of required NRC inspections. Pilgrim is also in Column 4 and is subject to an extensive, but limited, set of required NRC inspections. See Note 8 to the financial statements for further discussion of the placement of ANO 1 and 2, and Pilgrim in Column 4 of the NRC’s matrix.

Entergy’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters. Management believes that Entergy’s businesses are in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and ~~operations.~~operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted below. Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance requirements and costs cannot be precisely estimated. Except to the extent discussed below, at this time compliance with federal, state, and local provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise protecting the environment, is incorporated into the routine cost structure of Entergy’s businesses and is not expected to have a material effect on their competitive position, results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.

The Clean Air Act and its amendments establish several programs that currently or in the future may affect Entergy’s fossil-fueled generation facilities and, to a lesser extent, certain operations at nuclear and other facilities. Individual states also operate similar independent state programs or delegated federal programs that may include requirements more stringent than federal regulatory requirements. These programs include:

Preconstruction permits are required for new facilities and for existing facilities that undergo a modification that results in a significant net emissions increase and is not classified as routine repair, maintenance, or replacement. Units that undergo certain non-routine modifications must obtain a permit modification and may be required to install additional air pollution control technologies. Entergy has an established process for identifying modifications requiring additional permitting approval and ~~has followed~~follows the regulations and associated guidance provided by the states and the federal government with regard to the determination of routine repair, maintenance, and replacement. In recent years, however, the EPA has begun an enforcement initiative, aimed primarily at coal plants, to identify modifications that it does not consider routine for which the unit did not obtain a modified permit. Various courts and the EPA have been inconsistent in their judgments regarding modifications that are considered routine and on other legal issues that affect this program.

In February 2011, Entergy received a request from the EPA for several categories of information concerning capital and maintenance projects at the White Bluff and Independence facilities, both located in Arkansas, in order to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act, including ~~New Source Review~~NSR requirements and air permits issued by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. In August 2011, Entergy’s Nelson facility, located in Louisiana, received a similar request for information from the EPA. In September 2015 a subsequent request for similar information was received for the White Bluff facility. Entergy responded to all requests. None of these EPA requests for information alleged that the facilities were in violation of law.

In January 2018 and February 2018, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, Entergy Power, and other co-owners received 60-day notice of intent to sue letters from the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association concerning allegations of violations of new source review and permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Independence and White Bluff coal-burning units, respectively. Entergy is reviewing these claims and will respond accordingly.

Entergy Texas operates one fossil-fueled generating ~~unit~~facility (Lewis Creek) and is in the process of permitting and constructing one fossil-fueled facility (Montgomery Count Power Station) in a geographic area that is not in attainment ofwith the currently-enforced national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The nonattainment area that affects Entergy Texas is the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area. Areas in nonattainment are classified as “marginal,” “moderate,” “serious,” or “severe.” When an area fails to meet the ambient air standard, the EPA requires state regulatory authorities to prepare state implementation plans meant to cause progress toward bringing the area into attainment with applicable standards.

The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area was originally classified as “moderate” nonattainment under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard with an attainment date of June 15, 2010. In June 2007 the Texas governor petitioned the EPA to reclassify Houston-Galveston-Brazoria from “moderate” to “severe” and the EPA granted the request in October 2008. In February 2015 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted a request to the EPA for a ~~finding, and in December 2015, the EPA issued the~~ finding that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area is in attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA issued this finding in December 2015. In April 2015 the EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS and in May 2016, the EPA issued a proposed rule approving a substitute for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area. This redesignation indicates that the area has attained the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions and that it will maintain that NAAQS for 10 years from the date of the approval. Final approval, ~~will result~~which was effective in December 2016, resulted in the area no longer being subject to any remaining anti-backsliding or non-attainment new source review requirements associated with the revoked 1997 NAAQS.

In March 2008 the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone, creating the potential for additional counties and parishes in which Entergy operates to be placed in nonattainment status. In April 2012 the EPA released its final non-attainment designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In Entergy’s utility service area, the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, Texas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Memphis, Tennessee/Mississippi/Arkansas areas were designated as in “marginal” nonattainment. In August 2015 and January 2016, the EPA proposed determinations that the Baton Rouge and Memphis areas had attained the 2008 standard. In May 2016 the EPA finalized those determinations and extended the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area’s attainment date for the 2008 Ozone standard to July 20, ~~2016.~~2016 and reclassified the Baton Rouge area as attainment for ozone under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. In December 2016 the EPA determined that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area had failed to attain the 2008 ozone standard by the 2016 attainment date. This finding reclassifies the ~~HGB~~Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area from marginal to “moderate.”

In October 2015 the EPA issued a final rule lowering the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 70 parts per billion. States were required to assess their attainment status and recommend designations to the EPA. In January 2018 the EPA ~~by October 2016. The~~proposed that the following counties and parishes in Entergy’s service territory ~~were recommended for~~be listed as in non-attainment: in Louisiana, Ascension Parish, East Baton Rouge Parish, West Baton Rouge Parish, Iberville Parish, and Livingston Parish; in Texas, Montgomery County. In addition to Lewis Creek in Montgomery County, Texas, Entergy owns or operates fossil-fueled generating units in East Baton Rouge Parish (Louisiana Station) and in Iberville Parish (Willow Glen), Louisiana. The ~~EPA has one year to review these recommendations and make~~EPA’s final ~~designations. States~~designations are ~~expected to file compliance plans by the end of 2018. The assessments likely will be based on data from 2014-2016.~~pending. Entergy will continue to work with state environmental agencies on appropriate methods for assessing attainment and non-attainment with the new standard and, where necessary, in planning for compliance. Following ~~designation approval~~designations by the EPA, states will be required to develop plans intended to return non-attainment areas to a condition of attainment. The timing for that action depends largely on the severity of non-attainment in a given area.

The EPA issued a final rule in June 2010 adopting an SO₂ 1-hour national ambient air quality standard of 75 parts per billion. The EPA designations for counties in attainment and nonattainment were originally due in June 2012, but the EPA indicated that it would delay designations except for those areas with existing monitoring data from 2009 to 2011 indicating violations of the new standard. In August 2013 the EPA issued final designations for these areas. In Entergy’s utility service territory, only St. Bernard Parish in Louisiana is designated as non-attainment for the SO₂

The EPA released the final Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule in December 2011, which had a compliance date, with a widely granted one-year extension, of April 2016. The required controls have been installed and are operational at all affected Entergy units.

In March 2005 the EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was intended to reduce SO₂ and NO_x emissions from electric generation plants in order to improve air quality in twenty-nine eastern states. The rule required a combination of capital investment to install pollution control equipment and increased operating costs through the purchase of emission allowances. Entergy began implementation in 2007, including installation of controls at several facilities and the development of an emission allowance procurement strategy.

Based on several court challenges, CAIR and its subsequent versions, now known as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), have been remanded to and modified by the EPA on multiple occasions. In July 2015 the D.C. Circuit invalidated the allowance budgets created by the EPA for several states, including Texas, and remanded that portion of the rule to the EPA for further action. The court did not stay or vacate the rule in the interim. CSAPR remains in effect.

The CSAPR Phase 1 implementation became effective January 1, 2015. Entergy has developed a compliance plan that could, over time, include both installation of controls at certain facilities and an emission allowance procurement strategy.

In September 2016 the EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Starting in 2017 the final rule will require reductions in summer nitrogen oxides (NO_x) emissions. Several states, including Arkansas and Texas, filed a challenge to the Update Rule, which remains pending.

In June 2005 the EPA issued its final Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) regulations that potentially could result in a requirement to install SO₂ and NO_x pollution control technology as Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART) to continue operating certain of Entergy’s fossil generation units. The rule leaves certain CAVR determinations to the states.

In Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality ~~(ADEQ)~~ prepared a ~~State Implementation Plan~~state implementation plan (SIP) for Arkansas facilities to implement its obligations under the CAVR. In April 2012 the EPA finalized a decision

In September 2016 the EPA published the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP. In most respects, the EPA finalized its original proposal but shortened the time for compliance for installation of the NO_x controls. The FIP ~~requires~~required an emission limitation consistent with SO₂ scrubbers at both White Bluff and Independence by October 2021 and NO_x controls by April 2018. The EPA declined to adopt Entergy’s proposals related to ceasing coal use as an alternative to SO₂ scrubbers for White Bluff SO₂ BART. ~~For some or all of the FIP, Entergy anticipates that Arkansas will submit a state plan (SIP) to replace the FIP.~~ In November 2016, Entergy and other interested parties, ~~such as~~including the State of Arkansas, filed petitions for administrative reconsideration and stay at the EPA as well as petitions for judicial review toin the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. ~~In February 2016, Entergy,~~The Eighth Circuit continues to review its prior grant of the ~~State~~government’s motion to hold the appeal litigation in abeyance pending settlement discussions and pending the State’s development of ~~Arkansas, and other parties requested~~a SIP that, if approved by the ~~Court to judicially stay~~EPA, would replace the FIP. ~~A decision~~The state has proposed its replacement SIP in two parts: Part I considers NO_x requirements, and Part II considers SO₂requirements. The EPA approved the Part I NO_xSIP in January 2018. Arkansas has proposed a Part II SIP which is ~~expected in 2017.~~ still under consideration at the state level. The public comment period on Part II ended on February 2, 2018.

In Louisiana, Entergy ~~is working~~worked with the ~~LDEQ~~Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the EPA to revise the Louisiana SIP for regional haze, which was disapproved in part in 2012. AThe LDEQ submitted a revised SIP in February 2017. In May 2017 the EPA proposed ~~federal implementation plan is likely~~ to beapprove a majority of the revisions. In September 2017 the EPA issued a proposed SIP approval for the Nelson plant, requiring an emission limitation consistent with the use of low-sulfur coal, with a compliance date three years from the effective date of the final EPA approval. The EPA’s final approval decision was issued in ~~March~~December 2017 ~~with finalization in December 2017. At this time, it~~and is ~~premature~~on appeal to ~~predict what controls, if any, might be required~~the U.S. Court of Appeals for ~~compliance. Entergy continues to monitor~~ the ~~submission and to file comments in the process as appropriate.~~

As a part of a climate plan announced in June 2013, the EPA was directed to (i) reissue proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants by September 20, 2013, with finalization of the rules to occur in a timely manner; (ii) issue proposed carbon pollution standards, regulations, or guidelines, as appropriate, for modified, reconstructed, and existing power plants no later than June 1, 2014; (iii) finalize those rules by no later than June 1, 2015; and (iv) include in the guidelines addressing existing power plants a requirement that states submit to the EPA the implementation plans required under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations by no later than June 30, 2016. In January 2014 the EPA issued the proposed New Source Performance Standards rule for new sources. In June 2014 the EPA issued proposed standards for existing power plants. Entergy ~~has been~~was actively engaged in the rulemaking process, ~~having~~and submitted comments to the EPA in December 2014. The EPA issued the final ~~rule~~rules for both new and existing sources in August 2015, and ~~it was~~they were published in the Federal Register in October 2015. The existing source rule, also called the Clean Power Plan, requires states to develop plans for compliance ~~plans~~ with the EPA’s emission standards. In February 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay halting the effectiveness of the rule until the rule is reviewed by the D.C. Circuit and by the U.S. Supreme ~~Court. It~~Court, if further review is ~~also expected that~~granted. In March 2017 the current administration ~~will make modifications~~issued an executive order entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth” instructing the EPA to ~~this program.~~review and then to suspend, revise, or rescind the Clean Power Plan, if appropriate. The ~~cost~~EPA subsequently asked the D.C. Circuit to hold the challenges to the Clean Power Plan and ~~schedule for implementation~~the greenhouse gas new source performance standards in abeyance and signed a notice of withdrawal of the ~~111(d) implementation rule cannot be determined at this time~~proposed federal plan, model trading rules, and ~~will depend largely on~~the Clean Energy Incentive Program. The court ~~decisions, administration modifications~~placed the litigation in abeyance in April 2017. The EPA Administrator also sent a letter to the ~~program,~~affected governors explaining that states are not currently required to meet Clean Power Plan deadlines, some of which have passed. In October 2017 the EPA proposed a new rule that would repeal the Clean Power Plan on the grounds that it exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority under the Clean Air Act. In December

In addition to the specific instances described above, there are a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives concerning air emissions, as well as other media, that are under consideration at the federal, state, and local level. Because of the nature of Entergy’s business, the imposition of any of these initiatives could affect Entergy’s

Entergy continues to support national legislation that would increase planning certainty for electric utilities while addressing carbon dioxide emissions in a responsible and flexible manner. By virtue of its proportionally large investment in low-emitting gas-fired and nuclear generation technologies, Entergy has a low overall carbon dioxide emission “intensity,” or rate of carbon dioxide emitted per ~~kilowatt-hour~~megawatt-hour of electricity generated. In anticipation of the imposition of carbon dioxide emission limits on the electric industry in the future, Entergy initiated actions designed to reduce its exposure to potential new governmental requirements related to carbon dioxide emissions. These voluntary actions included establishment of a formal program to stabilize power plant carbon dioxide emissions at 2000 levels through 2005, and Entergy succeeded in reducing emissions below 2000 levels. Total carbon dioxide emissions representing Entergy’s ownership share of power plants in the United States were approximately 53.2 million tons in 2000 and 35.6 million tons in 2005. In 2006, Entergy changed its method of calculating emissions to include emissions from controllable power purchases as well as its ownership share of generation. Entergy established a second formal voluntary program to stabilize power plant carbon dioxide emissions and emissions from controllable power purchases at 20% below 2000 levels through 2010. In 2011, Entergy extended this commitment through 2020. Total carbon dioxide emissions representing Entergy’s ownership share of power plants and controllable power purchases in the United States were approximately 46.1 million tons in 2011, 45.5 million tons in 2012, 46.2 million tons in 2013, 42.4 million tons in 2014, 39.5 million tons in 2015, ~~and~~ 42.5 million tons in ~~2016.~~2016, and 39.9 million tons in 2017. The decrease

Entergy participates in the M.J. Bradley & Associates’ Annual Benchmarking Air Emissions Report, an annual analysis of the 100 largest U.S. electric power producers. The report is available on the M.J. Bradley website. Entergy’s annual CO₂ emissions ~~are~~audit is also third-party verified, and that certification is made available on the American Carbon Registry website. Entergy participates annually in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and in ~~2016~~2017 was listed on the North American Index.

The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act) provide the statutory basis for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act requires virtually all discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to be permitted. Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act regulates cooling water intake structures, section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a water quality certification from the state in support of certain federal actions and approvals, and section 404 regulates the dredge and fill of waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands.

NPDES permits are subject to renewal every five years. Consequently, Entergy is currently in various stages of the data evaluation and discharge permitting process for its power plants.

For thirteen years, Entergy participated in an administrative permitting process with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for renewal of the Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 discharge permit. That proceeding recently was settled along with other ongoing proceedings. For a discussion of the recent Indian Point settlement, see “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Authorization to Operate ~~Its Nuclear Power Plants~~Indian Point” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis.

The EPA finalized regulations in July 2004 governing the intake of water at large existing power plants employing cooling water intake structures. The rule sought to reduce perceived impacts on aquatic resources by requiring covered facilities to implement technology or other measures to meet EPA-targeted reductions in water use and corresponding perceived aquatic impacts. Entergy, other industry members and industry groups, environmental groups, and a coalition of northeastern and mid-Atlantic states challenged various aspects of the rule. After litigation, ~~in May 2014,~~ the EPA issued a new final 316(b) rule ~~followed by publication in the Federal Register~~ in August ~~2014, with the final rule effective in October~~ 2014. Entergy is developing a compliance plan for each affected facility in accordance with the requirements of the final rule.

Entergy filed a petition for review of the final rule as a co-petitioner with the Utility Water Act ~~Group a petition~~Group. The U.S. Court of Appeals for ~~review of~~ the ~~final rule. The case will be heard in the U.S.~~ Second Circuit ~~Court of Appeals. Entergy expects briefing on the case to be finalized~~heard oral argument in ~~early~~September 2017.

Before a federal licensing agency (such as the NRC) may issue a major license or permit for an activity within the federally designated coastal zone, the agency must be satisfied that the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), as applicable, have been met. In many cases, CZMA requirements are satisfied by the state’s written concurrence with a “consistency determination” filed by the federal license applicant explaining why the activity proposed to be federally licensed is consistent with the state’s coastal management program. For a discussion of the recent Indian Point settlement, including the CZMA proceedings related to Indian Point license renewal, see “Entergy

In September 2013 the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced the intention to propose a rule to clarify federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over waters of the United States. The announcement was made in conjunction with the EPA’s release of a draft scientific report on the “connectivity” of waters that the agency ~~says will~~said would inform the ~~rulemaking - this~~rulemaking. This report was finalized in January 2015. The ~~Final Rule~~final rule was published in the Federal Register in June 2015. The rule could significantly increase the number and types of waters included in the EPA’s and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction, which in turn could pose additional permitting and pollutant management burdens on Entergy’s operations. ~~Entergy is actively engaged with the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to identify issues that require clarification in expected technical and policy guidance documents.~~ The final rule has been challenged in various federal ~~court~~courts by several parties, including ~~over thirty~~most states. In August 2015 the District Court for North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction staying the new rule in 13 ~~states.~~states, including Arkansas. In October 2015 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the rule. In February 2017 the current administration issued an executive order instructing the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the Waters of the United States rule and to revise or rescind, as appropriate. In June 2017 the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a proposed rule that rescinds the June 2015 rule and recodifies the definition of “waters of the U.S.” that was in effect prior to the 2015 rule. The administration is expected to propose a definition of “waters of the U.S.” at a later date. In January 2018 the Supreme Court determined that the Sixth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over the petition to review the 2015 rule and that the challenges should be heard in the federal district court. The matter has been remanded to the Sixth Circuit, which is expected to lift the nationwide stay. After the Supreme Court decision, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finalized a rule delaying the applicability date of the 2015 rule to early 2020. In February 2018 the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas filed suit in Texas federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction of the 2015 rule. Entergy will continue to monitor this rulemaking and ensure compliance with existing permitting processes. In response to the stay, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps resumed nationwide use of the agencies’ regulations as they existed prior to August 27, 2015.litigation.

The NRC requires nuclear power plants to monitor and report regularly the presence of radioactive material in the environment. Entergy joined other nuclear utilities and the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2006 to develop a voluntary groundwater monitoring and protection program. This initiative began after detection of very low levels of radioactive material, primarily tritium, in groundwater at several plants in the United States. Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that occurs naturally and is also a byproduct of nuclear plant operations. In addition to tritium, other radionuclides have been found in site groundwater at nuclear plants.

As part of the groundwater monitoring and protection program, Entergy has: (1) performed reviews of plant groundwater characteristics (hydrology) and historical records of past events on site that may have potentially impacted groundwater; (2) implemented fleet procedures on how to handle events that could impact groundwater; and (3) installed groundwater monitoring wells and began periodic sampling. The program also includes protocols for notifying local officials if contamination is found. To date, radionuclides such as tritium have been detected at Arkansas Nuclear One, ~~FitzPatrick,~~ Indian Point, Palisades, Pilgrim, Grand Gulf, Vermont Yankee, and River Bend. Each of these sites has installed groundwater monitoring wells and implemented a program for testing groundwater at the sites for the presence of tritium and other radionuclides. Based on current information, the concentrations and locations of radionuclides detected at these plants pose no threat to public health or safety, but each site continues to evaluate the results from its groundwater monitoring program.

In February 2016, Entergy disclosed that elevated tritium levels had been detected in samples from several monitoring wells that are part of Indian Point’s groundwater monitoring program. Investigation of the source of elevated tritium has determined that the source is related to a temporary system to process water in preparation for the regularly scheduled refueling outage at Indian Point 2. The system was secured and is no longer in use and additional measures have been taken to prevent reoccurrence should the system be needed again. In June 2016, Indian Point detected trace amounts of cobalt 58 in a single well. This was associated with the draining and disassembly of a temporary heat

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), authorizes the EPA to mandate clean-up by, or to collect reimbursement of clean-up costs from, owners or operators of sites at which hazardous substances may be or have been released. Certain private parties also may use CERCLA to recover response costs. Parties that transported hazardous substances to these sites or arranged for the disposal of the substances are also deemed liable by CERCLA. CERCLA has been interpreted to impose strict, joint and several liability on responsible parties. Many states have adopted programs similar to CERCLA. Entergy subsidiaries in the Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities businesses have sent waste materials to various disposal sites over the years, and releases have occurred at Entergy facilities. In addition, environmental laws now regulate certain of Entergy’s operating procedures and maintenance practices that historically were not subject to regulation. Some disposal sites used by Entergy subsidiaries have been the subject of governmental action under CERCLA or similar state programs, resulting in site clean-up activities. Entergy subsidiaries have participated to various degrees in accordance with their respective potential liabilities in such site clean-ups and have developed experience with clean-up costs. The affected Entergy subsidiaries have established provisions for the liabilities for such environmental clean-up and restoration activities. Details of potentially material CERCLA and similar state program liabilities ~~that are not~~ ~~de minimis~~are discussed in the ~~“Other~~“Other Environmental ~~Matters”~~Matters” section below.

In June 2010 the EPA issued a proposed rule on coal combustion residuals (CCRs) that contained two primary regulatory options: (1) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or received (including stored) in surface impoundments as so-called “special wastes” under the hazardous waste program of RCRA Subtitle C; or (2) regulating CCRs destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments as non-hazardous wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA. Under both options, CCRs that are beneficially reused in certain processes would remain excluded from hazardous waste regulation. In April 2015 the EPA published the final CCR rule with the material being regulated under the second scenario presented above - as non-hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA Subtitle D.

The final regulations create new compliance requirements including modified storage, new notification and reporting practices, product disposal considerations, and CCR unit closure criteria. Entergy believes that on-site disposal options will be available at its facilities, to the extent needed for CCR that cannot be transferred for beneficial reuse. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy’s has recorded asset retirement obligations related to CCR management of ~~$8.2~~$8.6 million, including ~~$3.8~~$3.9 million at Entergy Arkansas, ~~$1.7~~$1.8 million at Entergy Louisiana, $1.1 million at Entergy Mississippi, and $1.3 million at Entergy Texas.

In December 2016 the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) was signed into law, which authorizes states to regulate coal ash rather than leaving primary enforcement to citizen suit actions. States may submit to the EPA proposals for a permit programs. In September 2017 the EPA agreed to reconsider certain provisions of the CCR rule in light of the WIIN Act. The EPA has not yet initiated a new round of rulemaking and did not extend the existing mid-October 2017 groundwater monitoring deadline. Entergy met the existing monitoring deadline, is monitoring state agency actions, and will participate in the regulatory development process.

In late-2017, Entergy determined that certain in-ground wastewater treatment system recycle ponds at its White Bluff and Independence facilities require management under the new EPA regulations. Entergy is taking action to address the operational and regulatory management of these facilities. Entergy also has monitored levels of constituents in the groundwater monitoring system surrounding its coal combustion residual landfills at these locations that require reporting and additional monitoring. Reporting has occurred as required, and monitoring will continue. Any potential

Entergy Louisiana, as successor in interest to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, currently is involved in the second phase of the remedial investigation of the Lake Charles Service Center site, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. A manufactured gas plant (MGP) is believed to have operated at this site from approximately 1916 to 1931. Coal tar, a by-product of the distillation process employed at MGPs, apparently was routed to a portion of the property for disposal. The same area also has been used as a landfill. In 1999, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. signed a second administrative consent order with the EPA to perform a removal action at the site. In 2002 approximately 7,400 tons of contaminated soil and debris were excavated and disposed of from an area within the service center. In 2003 a cap was constructed over the remedial area to prevent the migration of contamination to the surface. In August 2005 an administrative order was issued by the EPA requiring that a 10-year groundwater study be conducted at this site. The groundwater monitoring study commenced in January 2006 and is continuing. The EPA released the second Five Year Review in 2015. The EPA ~~believes~~indicated that the current remediation technique iswas insufficient and that Entergy ~~will~~would need to utilize other remediation technologies on the site. In July 2015, Entergy submitted a Focused Feasibility Study to the EPA outlining the potential remedies and ~~the suggested~~suggesting installation of a waterloo barrier. The estimated cost for this remedy is approximately $2 million. Entergy is awaiting comments and direction from the EPA on the Focused Feasibility Study and potential remedy selection. In early 2017 the EPA indicated that the new remedial method, a waterloo barrier, may not be necessary and requested revisions to the Focused Feasibility Study. The EPA plans to provide comments on the revised 2017 Focused Feasibility Study in the next Five Year Review in 2020. Entergy is continuing discussions with the EPA regarding the ongoing actions at the site.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) notified Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Texas that the TCEQ believes those entities are potentially responsible parties (PRPs) concerning contamination existing at the San Angelo Electric Service Company (SESCO) facility in San Angelo, Texas. The facility operated as a transformer repair and scrapping facility from the 1930s until 2003. Both soil and groundwater contamination exists at the site. Entergy subsidiaries sent transformers to this facility. Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy Texas responded to an information request from the TCEQ and continue to cooperate in this investigation. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas joined a group of PRPs responding to site conditions in cooperation with the State of Texas, creating cost allocation models based on review of SESCO documents and employee interviews, and investigating contribution actions against other PRPs. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas have agreed to contribute to the remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at the site in a measure proportionate to those companies’ involvement at the site, while Entergy Arkansas likely will pay a de minimis amount. Current estimates, although variable depending on ultimate remediation design and performance, indicate that Entergy’s total share of remediation costs likely will be approximately $1.5 million to $2 million. Remediation activities continue at the site.

In December 2016 a transformer inside the Hartburg, Texas Substation had an internal fault resulting in a release of approximately 15,000 gallons of non-PCB mineral oil. Cleanup ensued immediately; however, rain caused much of the oil to spread across the substation yard and into a nearby wetland. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the National Response Center were immediately notified, and TCEQ responded to the site approximately two hours after the cleanup was initiated. The remediation liability is estimated at ~~$1.4~~$2.2 million; however, this number could fluctuate depending on the remediation extent and wetland mitigation requirements. In July 2017,

In May 2015 a transformer at the Indian Point facility failed, resulting in a fire and the release of non-PCB oil to the ground surface. The fire was extinguished by the facility’s fire deluge system. No injuries occurred due to the transformer failure or company response. An estimated 3,000 gallons of oil were released into the facility’s discharge canal and the environment surrounding the transformer and discharge canal, including the Hudson River, as a result of the failure, fire, and fire suppression. Once the fire was extinguished, Indian Point personnel and contractors began recovering free-product from the damaged transformer, the transformer containment moat, and the area surrounding the transformer. The United States Coast Guard designated Entergy as the responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and assessed a $1,000 civil penalty for the discharge of oil into navigable waters. As required, Entergy established a claims process including a voluntary hotline. Entergy received no reports to the voluntary hotline or claims under the established claims process. ~~Additional on-site remedial work including subsurface investigation continues, and the State of New York and/or the EPA may assess a penalty due to the release of oil to waters of the state.~~ In September 2016, Indian Point personnel identified an oil sheen in the discharge canal. Further investigation revealed that an estimated 600 gallons of lubricating oil had leaked from the Indian Point 3 turbine system. The leaking component has been taken out of service and no oil has been discovered in the Hudson River. In October 2016 the New York Department of Environmental Conservation issued two notices of violation, one for each of these events, and a proposed order on consent for the 2015 event. In January 2017, Entergy and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation resolved this matter with an ~~Order~~order on ~~Consent. The agreed Order requires~~consent. Pursuant to the order, Entergy ~~to pay~~paid approximately $600 thousand in civil penalties, natural resource damages, and oversight costs. Additionally, Entergy ~~will repair~~repaired a ~~70-foot~~ section of the discharge canal wall and will conduct daily visual inspections of the discharge canal wall to help identify additional material erosion or material structural deficiencies. Entergy has completed all compliance obligations under the consent order and the Department of Environmental Conservation closed the matter in December 2017.

Entergy uses legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against it, but certain states in which Entergy operates have proven to be unusually litigious environments. Judges and juries in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs

See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of this proceeding.

See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of this litigation.

See Note 8 to the financial statements for a discussion of these proceedings.

Employees are an integral part of Entergy’s commitment to serving customers. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy subsidiaries employed ~~13,513~~13,504 people.

Approximately ~~4,900~~4,600 employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Utility Workers Union of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Government Security Officers of America, and the International Union, Security, Police, Fire Professionals of America.

Entergy electronically files reports with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxies, and amendments to such reports. The public may read and copy any materials that Entergy files with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington,

Entergy uses its website, http://www.entergy.com, as a routine channel for distribution of important information, including news releases, analyst presentations and financial information. Filings made with the SEC are posted and available without charge on Entergy’s website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. These filings include annual and quarterly reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q (including related filings in XBRL format) and current reports on Form 8-K; proxy statements; and any amendments to those reports or statements. All such postings and filings are available on Entergy’s Investor Relations website free of charge. Entergy is providing the address to its ~~Internet~~internet site solely for the information of investors and does not intend the address to be an active link. The contents of the website are not incorporated into this report.

Investors should review carefully the following risk factors and the other information in this Form 10-K. The risks that Entergy faces are not limited to those in this section. There may be additional risks and uncertainties (either currently unknown or not currently believed to be material) that could adversely affect Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. See “FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION.”

The rates that the Utility operating companies and System Energy charge reflect their capital expenditures, operations and maintenance costs, allowed rates of return, financing costs, and related costs of service. These rates significantly influence the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy and each of the Utility operating companies and System Energy. These rates are determined in regulatory proceedings and are subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment, including adjustment upon the initiative of a regulator or affected stakeholders.

In addition, regulators ~~can~~may initiate proceedings to investigate the prudence of costs in the Utility operating companies’ base rates and examine, among other things, the reasonableness or prudence of the companies’ operation and maintenance practices, level of expenditures (including storm costs and costs associated with capital projects), allowed rates of return and rate base, proposed resource acquisitions, and previously incurred capital expenditures that the operating companies seek to place in rates. The regulators ~~can~~may disallow costs subject to their jurisdiction found not to have been prudently incurred or found not to have been incurred in compliance with applicable tariffs, creating some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs. Regulatory proceedings relating to rates and other matters typically involve multiple parties seeking to limit or reduce rates. Traditional base rate proceedings, as opposed to formula rate plans, generally have long timelines, are primarily based on historical costs, and may or may not be limited in scope or duration by statute. The length of these base rate proceedings can cause the Utility operating companies and System Energy to experience regulatory lag in recovering costs through rates. Decisions are typically subject to appeal, potentially leading to additional uncertainty associated with rate case proceedings.

The base rates of Entergy Texas are established largely in traditional base rate case proceedings. Apart from base rate proceedings, Entergy Texas has also filed to use rate riders to recover the revenue requirements associated with certain authorized historical costs. ~~Specifically,~~For example, Entergy Texas has recovered distribution-related capital investments through the distribution cost recovery factor rider mechanism, transmission-related capital investments and certain non-fuel MISO charges through the transmission cost recovery factor rider mechanism, and MISO fuel and energy-related costs through the fixed fuel factor mechanism. Entergy Texas is also required to make a filing every three years, at a minimum, reconciling its fuel and purchased power costs and fuel factor revenues. In the course of this reconciliation, the PUCT determines whether eligible fuel and fuel-related expenses and revenues are necessary and reasonable, and makes a prudence finding for each of the fuel-related contracts for the reconciliation period.

Between base rate cases, Entergy Arkansas and Entergy Mississippi are able to adjust base rates annually through formula rate plans that utilize a forward test year (Entergy Arkansas) or forward-looking features (Entergy Mississippi). In response to Entergy Arkansas’s application for a general change in rates in 2015, the APSC approved Entergy Arkansas’s proposed formula rate plan rider pursuant to its election to have its rates regulated under a formula rate review mechanism pursuant to legislation enacted by the Arkansas General Assembly in early 2015. The APSC approved the formula rate plan tariff proposed by Entergy Arkansas including its use of a projected year test period and an initial five-year term. The initial five-year term expires in 2021 unless Entergy Arkansas requests, and the APSC approves, the extension of the formula rate plan tariff for an additional five years through 2026. In the event that Entergy ~~Arkansas’~~Arkansas’s formula rate plan is terminated or is not extended beyond the initial term, Entergy Arkansas could file an

Entergy Louisiana historically sets electric base rates annually through a formula rate plan using an historic test year. The form of the formula rate plan, on a combined basis, was approved in connection with the business combination of Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and largely followed the formula rate plans that were approved by the LPSC in connection with the full electric base rate cases filed by those companies in February 2013. The formula rate plan iswas approved for continued use through the test year 2016 ~~filing. Entergy Louisiana’s electric formula rate plan~~filing and included a cap in cost of service increases ~~are capped~~ at a cumulative total of $30 million through the formula rate plan ~~cycle.~~cycle, which cap was not reached. The LPSC also approved in the business combination Entergy Louisiana’s continuation of a mechanism to recover non-fuel MISO-related costs, which are calculated separately from the formula rate plan requirements, but embedded in the formula rate plan factor applied on customer bills. This recovery mechanism ~~expires~~expired following the 2015 test year, ~~and Entergy Louisiana has filed an application seeking to extend that mechanism, which is subject to review and approval by~~but was renewed for the ~~LPSC.~~2016 test year. MISO fuel and energy-related costs are recoverable in Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause. The formula rate plan ~~retains~~includes exceptions from the rate ~~cap/restrictions~~cap and sharing requirements for certain large capital investment projects, including acquisition or construction of generating facilities, as well as purchase power agreements approved by the ~~LPSC.~~LPSC, among other items. In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed to extend the formula rate plan for an additional three years and to reset rates to the authorized mid-point return on equity of 9.95%. The filing also seeks certain modifications to the formula rate plan, including a narrower, 80 basis points earnings sharing bandwidth and implementation of a rider to recover certain transmission-related investments, when those investments begin delivering benefits to customers. In the event that the electric formula rate ~~plans were terminated,~~plan is not renewed or ~~expired without renewal or extension,~~extended, Entergy Louisiana would ~~at that time~~ revert to the more traditional rate case environment.

Entergy New Orleans previously operated under a formula rate plan that ended with the 2011 test year. Currently, based on a settlement agreement approved by the City Council, with limited exceptions, no action may be taken with respect to Entergy New ~~Orleans’~~Orleans’s base rates until rates are implemented from a base rate case that must be filed for its electric and gas operations in 2018. The limited exceptions include implementation of the final year of a four-year phased-in rate increase for its Algiers operations in the Fifteenth Ward of the City of New Orleans and certain exceptional cost increases or decreases in its base revenue requirement.

The rates of System Energy are established by the FERC, and the costs allowed to be charged pursuant to these rates are, in turn, passed through to the participating Utility operating companies through the Unit Power Sales Agreement, which allows monthly adjustments to reflect the current operating costs of, and investment in, Grand Gulf.

The Utility operating companies and System Energy, and the energy industry as a whole, have experienced a period of rising costs and investments, and an upward trend in spending, especially with respect to infrastructure investments, which is likely to continue in the foreseeable future and could result in more frequent rate cases and requests for, and the continuation of, cost recovery mechanisms. For information regarding rate case proceedings and formula rate plans applicable to the Utility operating companies, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

The Utility operating companies recover their fuel, purchased power, and associated costs from their customers through rate mechanisms subject to periodic regulatory review and adjustment. Because regulatory review can result in the disallowance of incurred costs found not to have been prudently incurred, including the cost of replacement power purchased when generators experience outages, with the possibility of refunds to ratepayers, there exists some risk to the ultimate recovery of those costs. Regulators ~~can~~may also initiate proceedings to investigate the continued usage or the adequacy and operation of the fuel and purchased power recovery clauses of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, there can be no assurance that existing recovery mechanisms will remain unchanged or in effect at all.

The Utility operating companies’ cash flows can be negatively affected by the time delays between when gas, power, or other commodities are purchased and the ultimate recovery from customers of the costs in rates. On occasion, when the level of incurred costs for fuel and purchased power rises very dramatically, some of the Utility operating companies may agree to defer recovery of a portion of that period’s fuel and purchased power costs for recovery at a later date, which could increase the near-term working capital and borrowing requirements of those companies. For

The Utility operating companies historically have engaged in the coordinated planning, construction, and operation of generating resources and bulk transmission facilities under the terms of the System Agreement, which is a rate schedule that had been approved by the FERC.

There isremains uncertainty regarding the long-term effect of the termination of the System Agreement on the Utility operating companies because of the significant effect of the agreement on the generation and transmission functions of the Utility operating companies and the significant period of time (over 30 years) that it ~~has~~had been in existence. In the absence of the System Agreement, there isremains uncertainty around the effectiveness of governance processes and the potential absence of federal authority to resolve certain issues among the Utility operating companies and their retail regulators.

In addition, although the System Agreement terminated in its entirety in August 2016, there are a number of outstanding System Agreement proceedings at the FERC that may require future adjustments, including challenges to the level and timing of payments made by Entergy Arkansas under the System Agreement. The outcome and timing of these FERC proceedings and resulting recovery and impact on rates cannot be predicted at this time.

For further information regarding the regulatory proceedings relating to the System Agreement, see Note 2 to the financial statements.

On December 19, 2013, the Utility operating companies integrated into the MISO RTO. MISO maintains functional control over the combined transmission systems of its members and administers wholesale energy and ancillary services markets for market participants in the MISO region, including the Utility operating companies. The Utility operating companies sell capacity, energy, and ancillary services on a bilateral basis to certain wholesale customers and offer available electricity production of their generating facilities into the MISO day-ahead and real-time energy markets pursuant to the MISO tariff and market rules. The Utility operating companies are subject to economic risks associated with participation in the MISO markets. MISO tariff rules and system conditions, including transmission congestion, could affect the Utility operating companies’ ability to sell power in certain regions and/or the economic value of such sales, and MISO market rules may change in ways that cause additional risk.

The Utility operating companies participate in the MISO regional transmission planning process and are subject to risks associated with planning decisions that MISO makes in the exercise of control over the planning of the Utility operating companies’ transmission assets that are under MISO’s functional control. The Utility operating companies pay transmission rates that reflect the cost of transmission projects that the Utility operating companies do not own, which could increase cash or financing needs. ~~The~~MISO is currently evaluating through its stakeholder process potential changes in the transmission project criteria in MISO. These changes, if adopted, could potentially result in a larger

Entergy’s and its Utility operating companies’ results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition can be materially affected by the destructive effects of severe weather. Severe weather can also result in significant outages for the customers of the Utility operating companies and, therefore, reduced revenues for the Utility operating companies during the period of the outages. A delay or failure in recovering amounts for storm restoration costs incurred or revenues lost as a result of severe weather could have a material effect on Entergy and those Utility operating companies affected by severe weather.

Nuclear capacity factors significantly affect the results of operations of certain Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities. Nuclear plant operations involve substantial fixed operating costs. Consequently, to be successful, a plant owner must consistently operate its nuclear power plants at high capacity ~~factors.~~factors, consistent with safety requirements. For the Utility operating companies that own nuclear plants, lower capacity factors can increase production costs by requiring the affected companies to generate additional energy, sometimes at higher costs, from their fossil facilities or purchase additional energy in the spot or forward markets in order to satisfy their supply needs. For the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants, lower capacity factors directly affect revenues and cash flow from operations. Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ forward sales are comprised of various hedge products, many of which have some degree of operational-contingent price risk. Certain unit-contingent contracts guarantee specified minimum capacity factors. In the event plants with these contracts were operating below the guaranteed capacity factors, Entergy would be subject to price risk for the undelivered power. Further, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear forward sales contracts can also be on a firm LD basis, which subjects Entergy to increasing price risk as capacity factors decrease. Many of these firm hedge products have damages risk, capped through the use of risk management products.

Outages at nuclear power plants to replenish fuel require the plant to be “turned off.” Refueling outages generally are planned to occur once every 18 to 24 months and average approximately 30 days in duration. Plant maintenance and upgrades are often scheduled during such planned outages. When refueling outages last longer than anticipated or a plant experiences unplanned outages, capacity factors decrease and maintenance costs may

Based upon currently planned fuel cycles, Entergy’s nuclear units have a diversified portfolio of contracts and inventory that provides substantially adequate nuclear fuel materials and conversion and enrichment services at what Entergy believes are reasonably predictable prices through most of ~~2017and beyond.~~2018. The nuclear fuel supply portfolio for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities segment is being adjusted to reflect reduced overall requirements related to the planned permanent shutdown of the Palisades, Pilgrim, Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 plants ~~and~~over the ~~planned sale of the FitzPatrick plant~~next two to five years. Entergy’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel at reasonably predictable prices, however, depends upon the performance reliability of uranium ~~miners and enrichers.~~miners. While there are a number of possible alternate suppliers that may be accessed to mitigate any supplier performance failure, the pricing of any such alternate uranium supply from the market will be dependent upon the market for uranium supply ~~at that time. Entergy also may draw upon its own inventory intended for later generation periods, depending upon its risk management strategy~~ at that time. Entergy buys uranium from a diversified mix of sellers located in a diversified mix of countries, and from time to time purchases from nearly all qualified reliable major market participants worldwide that sell into the U.S. Market prices for nuclear fuel have been extremely volatile from time to time in the past. Although Entergy’s nuclear fuel contract portfolio provides a degree of hedging against market risks for several years, costs for nuclear fuel in the future cannot be predicted with certainty due to normal inherent market uncertainties, and price ~~increases~~changes could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

Entergy’s ability to assure nuclear fuel supply also depends upon the performance and reliability of conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services providers. These service providers are fewer in number than uranium suppliers. For conversion and enrichment services, Entergy diversifies its supply by supplier and country and may take special measures to ensure a reliable supply of enriched uranium for fabrication into nuclear fuel. For fabrication services, each plant is dependent upon the performance of the fabricator of that plant’s nuclear fuel; therefore, Entergy relies upon additional monitoring, inspection, and oversight of the fabrication process to assure reliability and quality of its nuclear fuel. Certain of the suppliers and service providers are located in or dependent upon countries, such as Russia, in which deteriorating economic conditions or international sanctions could restrict the ability of such suppliers to continue to supply fuel or provide such services. The inability of such suppliers or service providers to perform such obligations could materially affect the liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities.

Under the Atomic Energy Act and Energy Reorganization Act, the NRC regulates the operation of nuclear power plants. The NRC may modify, suspend, not renew, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility and impose civil penalties for failure to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, related regulations, or the terms of the licenses for

Events at nuclear plants owned by one of these companies, as well as those owned by others, may lead to a change in laws or regulations or the terms of the applicable licenses, or the NRC’s interpretation thereof, or may cause the NRC to increase oversight activity or initiate actions to modify, suspend, or revoke licenses, shut down a nuclear facility, or impose civil penalties. As a result, if an incident were to occur at any nuclear generating unit, whether an Entergy nuclear generating unit or not, it could materially affect the financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or Entergy Wholesale Commodities. For example, the earthquake of March 11, 2011 that affected the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants in Japan resulted in the NRC issuing various orders requiring U.S. nuclear operators, including Entergy, to undertake plant modifications or perform additional analyses that, among other things, have resulted in increased capital and operating costs associated with operating Entergy’s nuclear plants, some of which have been material.

The nuclear generating units owned by certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business began commercial operations in the 1970s-1980s. Older equipment may require more capital expenditures to keep each of these nuclear power plants operating safely and efficiently. This equipment is also likely to require periodic upgrading and improvement. Any unexpected failure, including failure associated with breakdowns, forced outages, or any unanticipated capital expenditures, could result in increased costs, some of which costs may not be fully recoverable by the Utility operating companies and System Energy in regulatory proceedings. Operations at any of the nuclear generating units owned and operated by Entergy’s subsidiaries could degrade to the point where the affected unit needs to be shut down or operated at less than full capacity. If this were to happen, identifying and correcting the causes may require significant time and expense. A decision may be made to close a unit rather than incur the expense of restarting it or returning the unit to full capacity. For the Utility operating companies and System Energy, this could result in certain costs being stranded and potentially not fully recoverable in regulatory proceedings. For Entergy Wholesale Commodities, this could result in lost revenue and increased fuel and purchased power expense to meet supply commitments and penalties for failure to perform under their contracts with customers. In addition, the operation and maintenance of Entergy’s nuclear facilities require the commitment of substantial human resources that can result in increased costs.

The nuclear industry continues to address susceptibility to the effects of stress corrosion cracking ofand other corrosion mechanisms on certain materials within plant systems. The issue is applicable at all nuclear units to varying degrees and is managed in accordance with industry standard practices and guidelines that include in-service examinations, replacements, and mitigation strategies. Developments in the industry or identification of issues at the nuclear units could require unanticipated remediation efforts that cannot be quantified in advance.

Moreover, Entergy is becoming more dependent on fewer suppliers for key parts of Entergy’s nuclear power plants that may need to be replaced or refurbished. In addition, certain major parts have long lead-times to manufacture

Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plants incur costs ~~on a periodic basis~~ for the on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel. The approval of a license for a national repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, such as the one proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, or any interim storage facility, and the timing of such facility opening, will significantly affect the costs associated with on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel. For example, while the DOE is required by law to proceed with the licensing of Yucca Mountain and, after the license is granted by the NRC, to construct the repository and commence the receipt of spent fuel, the NRC licensing of the Yucca Mountain repository is effectively at a standstill. These actions ~~may prolong~~are prolonging the time before spent fuel is removed from Entergy’s plant sites. Because the DOE has not accomplished its objectives, it is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and has breached its spent fuel disposal contracts, and Entergy has sued the DOE for such breach. Furthermore, Entergy is uncertain as to when the DOE ~~plans to~~will commence acceptance of spent fuel from its facilities for storage or disposal. As a result, continuing future expenditures will be required to increase spent fuel storage capacity at the companies’ nuclear sites and maintenance costs on existing storage facilities, including aging management of fuel storage casks, may increase. The costs of on-site storage are also affected by regulatory requirements for such storage. In addition, the availability of a repository or other off-site storage facility for spent nuclear fuel may affect the ability to fully decommission the nuclear units and the costs relating to decommissioning. For further information regarding spent fuel storage, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates – Nuclear Decommissioning Costs – Spent Fuel Disposal” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy and Note 8 to the financial statements.

Accidents and other unforeseen problems at nuclear power plants have occurred both in the United States and elsewhere. The Price-Anderson Act limits each reactor owner’s public liability (off-site) for a single nuclear incident to the payment of retrospective premiums into a secondary insurance pool of up to approximately $127.3 million per reactor. With 102 reactors currently participating, this translates to a total public liability cap of approximately $13 billion per incident. The limit is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation, a change in the primary limit of insurance coverage, and changes in the number of licensed reactors. As required by the Price-Anderson Act, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities carry the maximum available amount of primary nuclear off-site liability insurance with American Nuclear Insurers (which is $450 million for each operating site as of January 1, ~~2017)~~2018). Claims for any nuclear incident exceeding that amount are covered under the retrospective premiums paid into the secondary insurance pool. As a result, in the event of a nuclear incident that causes damages (off-site) in excess of the primary insurance coverage, each owner of a nuclear plant reactor, including Entergy’s Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners, regardless of fault or proximity to the incident, will be required to pay a retrospective premium, equal to its proportionate share of the loss in excess of the primary insurance level, up to a maximum of approximately $127.3 million per reactor per incident (Entergy’s maximum total contingent obligation per incident is ~~$1.273~~$1.146 billion). The retrospective premium payment is currently limited to approximately $19 million per year per incident per reactor until the aggregate public liability for each licensee is paid up to the $127.3 million cap.

NEIL is a utility industry mutual insurance company, owned by its ~~members.~~members, including the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plants. All member plants could be subject to an annual assessment (retrospective premium of up to 10 times current annual premium for all policies) should the surplus (reserve) be significantly depleted due to insured losses. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, the maximum annual assessment amounts total ~~$135.2~~$112.2 million for the Utility ~~plants and $127.4 million for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities~~ plants. Retrospective premium insurance available through NEIL’s reinsurance treaty can cover the

As an owner of nuclear power plants, Entergy participates in industry self-insurance programs and could be liable to fund claims should a plant owned by a different company experience a major event. Any resulting liability from a nuclear accident may exceed the applicable primary insurance coverage and require contribution of additional funds through the industry-wide program that could significantly affect the results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity of Entergy, certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities subsidiaries.

Owners of nuclear generating plants have an obligation to decommission those plants. Certain of the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants maintain decommissioning trust funds for this purpose. Certain of the Utility operating companies collect funds from their customers, which are deposited into the trusts covering the units operated for or on behalf of those companies. Those rate collections, as adjusted from time to time by rate regulators, are generally based upon operating license lives and trust fund balances as well as estimated trust fund earnings and decommissioning costs. In connection with the acquisition of certain nuclear plants, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners also acquired decommissioning trust funds that are funded in accordance with NRC regulations. Assets in these trust funds are subject to market fluctuations, will yield uncertain returns that may fall below projected return rates, and may result in losses resulting from the recognition of impairments of the value of certain securities held in these trust funds. ~~As part~~

In connection with the acquisition of certain nuclear plants, the ~~Pilgrim, Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2, Vermont Yankee, and Palisades/Big Rock Point purchases, the former~~Entergy Wholesale Commodities plant owners ~~transferred~~acquired decommissioning trust funds ~~along~~that are funded in accordance with ~~the liability to decommission the plants, to the respective~~NRC regulations. Under NRC regulations, Entergy Wholesale ~~Commodities~~Commodities’ nuclear ~~power plant owners. In addition,~~subsidiaries are permitted to project the ~~former owner~~NRC-required decommissioning amount, based on an NRC formula or a site-specific estimate, and the amount that will be available in each of Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick retained the decommissioning trusts and related liability to decommission these plants, but had the right to require the respective Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners to assume the decommissioning liability provided that it assigned the funds in the corresponding decommissioning trust, up to a specified level, to such owners. Alternatively, the former owner could have contracted with Entergy Nuclear, Inc. for the decommissioning work at a price equal to the funds in the corresponding decommissioning trust up to a specified amount. A request was made to the NRC for permission to transfer the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick decommissioning trusts to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., which was received in January 2017. The decommissioning trusts and decommissioning liabilities for the Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick plants were transferred to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. by the former owner in January 2017. As part of the Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2 purchase, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power ~~plant owner also funded an additional $25 million to a supplemental~~plant’s decommissioning ~~trust fund. As part~~trusts combined with other decommissioning financial assurances in place. The projections are made based on the operating license expiration date and the mid-point of the ~~Palisades transaction,~~subsequent decommissioning process, or the anticipated actual completion of decommissioning if a site-specific estimate is used, for each of these nuclear power plants. As a result, if the projected amount of individual plants’ decommissioning trusts exceeds the NRC-required decommissioning amount, then its decommissioning obligations are considered to be funded in accordance with NRC regulations. If the projected costs do not sufficiently reflect the actual costs the applicable Entergy ~~Wholesale Commodities business assumed responsibility~~subsidiaries would be required to incur to decommission these nuclear power plants, or funding is otherwise inadequate, or if the formula, formula inputs, or site-specific estimate is changed to require increased funding, additional resources would be required. Furthermore, depending upon the level of funding available in the trust funds, the NRC may not permit the trust funds to be used to pay for related costs such as the management of spent nuclear fuel that are not included in the NRC’s formula. The NRC may also require a plan for the provision of separate funding for spent fuel at the decommissioned Big Rock Point nuclear plant, which is located near Charlevoix, Michigan. Once the spent fuel is removed from the site, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business will dismantle the spent fuel storage facility and complete site decommissioning. Entergy is providing $5 million in credit supportmanagement costs. In addition to ~~provide financial assurance to the~~ NRC requirements, there are other decommissioning-related obligations for ~~this obligation.~~

Further, federal or state regulatory changes, including mandated increases in decommissioning funding or changes in the methods or standards for decommissioning operations, may ~~be required to provide additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory~~also increase the funding requirements ~~for decommissioning. For further information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates– Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” section~~ of, ~~Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy and Note 9 to the financial statements.~~

An early plant shutdown (either generally or relative to current expectations), poor investment results or higher than anticipated decommissioning costs (including as a result of changing regulatory requirements) could cause trust fund assets to be insufficient to meet the decommissioning obligations, with the result that the Utility operating companies, System Energy or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear plant owners may be required to provide significant additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning, which, with respect to the Utility operating companies, may not be recoverable from customers in a timely fashion or at all.

For further information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs, management’s decision to exit the merchant power business and the impairment charges that resulted from such decision, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates- Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy, the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries and Notes 9 and 14 to the financial statements.

NRC regulations require certain minimum financial assurance requirements for meeting obligations to decommission nuclear power plants. Those financial assurance requirements may change from time to time, and certain changes may result in a material increase in the financial assurance required for decommissioning the Utility operating companies’, System Energy’s, and owners of Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants. Such changes could result in the need for additional contributions to decommissioning trusts, or the posting of parent guarantees, letters of credit, or other surety mechanisms. For further information regarding nuclear decommissioning costs, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates – Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Louisiana, and System Energy and Note 9 to the financial statements.

New and existing concerns are being expressed in public forums about the safety of nuclear generating units and nuclear fuel, in particular in the northeastern United States, which is where most of the current fleet of Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants is located. These concerns have led to, and are expected to continue to lead to, various proposals to Federal regulators and governing bodies in some localities where Entergy’s subsidiaries own nuclear generating units for legislative and regulatory changes that could lead to the shutdown of nuclear units, denial of license renewal applications, additional requirements or restrictions ~~on nuclear units as a result of unavailability of sites for~~related to spent nuclear fuel on-site storage and eventual disposal, or other adverse effects on owning, operating and decommissioning nuclear generating units. Entergy vigorously responds to these concerns and proposals. If any of the existing proposals, or any proposals that may arise in the future with respect to legislative and regulatory changes, become effective, they could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

The license renewal and related processes for the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ Indian Point nuclear power plants have been and may continue to be the subject of significant public debate and regulatory and legislative review and scrutiny at the federal and, in certain cases, state level. The original expiration date of the operating license for Indian Point 2 was September 2013 and the original expiration date of the operating license for Indian Point 3 was December 2015. Because these plants filed timely license renewal applications, the NRC’s rules provide that these plants may continue to operate under their existing operating licenses until their renewal applications have been finally determined. Various parties have expressed opposition to renewal of these licenses. Renewal of the Indian Point licenses is the subject of ongoing proceedings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) of the NRC and, with respect to issues resolved by the ASLB, before the NRC on appeal.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has taken the position that Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 must obtain a new state-issued Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification as part of the license renewal process. In addition, before the NRC may issue renewed operating licenses it must resolve its obligation to address the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). For further information regarding these environmental regulations see the “~~Regulation of Entergy’s Business~~ - ~~Environmental Regulation -~~ ~~Clean Water Act” section in Part I, Item 1. For additional discussion of the 401 and CZMA proceedings related to Indian Point license renewal, see the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Authorizations to Operate Its Nuclear Plants” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis.~~ In January 2017, Entergy

If the NRC ~~finally denies~~were to deny the applications for the renewal of operating licenses for the Indian Point nuclear power plants, or if Indian Point fails to obtain other approvals, Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity could be materially affected by loss of revenue and cash flow associated with the plant or plants until the proposed shutdown date, potential impairments of the carrying value of the plants, increased depreciation rates, and an accelerated need for decommissioning funds, which could require additional funding. In addition, Entergy may incur increased operating costs depending on any conditions that may be imposed in connection with license renewal. For further discussion regarding the license renewal processes for the Indian Point nuclear power plants, see the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Authorizations to Operate ~~Its Nuclear Plants~~Indian Point” in Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis.

Entergy and its subsidiaries do not have a regulator-authorized rate of return on their capital investments in non-utility businesses. ~~In particular,~~As a result, the sale of capacity and energy from the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants, unless otherwise contracted, is subject to the fluctuation of market power prices. In order to reduce future price risk to desired levels, Entergy Wholesale Commodities utilizes contracts that are unit-contingent and Firm LD and various products such as forward sales, options, and collars. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power generation plants had sold forward ~~87% in 2017, 56%~~98% in 2018, ~~and 5%~~91% in 2019, 51% in 2020, 74% in 2021, and 67% in 2022 of its generation portfolio’s planned energy output, reflecting the planned shutdown or sale of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants by ~~2021.~~

Market conditions such as product cost, market liquidity, and other portfolio considerations influence the product and contractual mix. The obligations under unit-contingent agreements depend on a generating asset that is operating; if the generation asset is not operating, the seller generally is not liable for damages. For some unit-contingent obligations, however, there is also a guarantee of availability that provides for the payment to the power purchaser of contract damages, if incurred, in the event the unit owner fails to deliver power as a result of the failure of the specified generation unit to generate power at or above a specified availability threshold. Firm LD sales transactions may be exposed to substantial operational price risk, a portion of which may be capped through the use of risk management products, to the extent that the plants do not run as expected and market prices exceed contract prices.

Market prices may fluctuate substantially, sometimes over relatively short periods of time, and at other times experience sustained increases or decreases. Demand for electricity and its fuel stock can fluctuate dramatically, creating periods of substantial under- or over-supply. During periods of over-supply, prices might be depressed. Also, from time to time there may be political pressure, or pressure from regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over wholesale and retail energy commodity and transportation rates, to impose price limitations, credit requirements, bidding rules and other mechanisms to address volatility and other issues in these markets.

The effects of sustained low natural gas prices and power market structure challenges have resulted in lower market prices for electricity in the power regions where the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants are located. In addition, currently the market design under which the plants operate does not adequately compensate merchant nuclear plants for their environmental and fuel diversity benefits in the region. These conditions were primary factors leading to Entergy’s decision to shut down (or sell) Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ nuclear power plants before the end of their operating licenses (or requested operating licenses for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3).

The price that different counterparties offer for various products including forward sales is influenced both by market conditions as well as the contract terms such as damage provisions, credit support requirements, and the number of available counterparties interested in contracting for the desired forward period. Depending on differences between market factors at the time of contracting versus current conditions, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ contract portfolio may have average contract prices above or below current market prices, including at the expiration of the contracts, which may significantly affect Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. New hedges are generally layered into on a rolling forward basis, which tends to drive hedge over-performance to market in a falling price environment, and hedge underperformance to market in a rising price environment; however, hedge timing, product choice, and hedging costs will also affect these results. See the “Market and Credit Risk Sensitive Instruments” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries. Since Entergy Wholesale Commodities has announced the closure (or sale) of its nuclear plants, Entergy Wholesale Commodities may enter into fewer forward sales contracts for output from such plants.

Among the factors that could affect market prices for electricity and fuel, all of which are beyond Entergy’s control to a significant degree, are:

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is subject to extensive regulation under federal, state, and local ~~laws and regulation.~~laws. Compliance with the requirements under these various regulatory regimes may cause the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to incur significant additional costs, and failure to comply with such requirements could result in the shutdown of the non-complying facility, the imposition of liens, fines and/or civil or criminal liability.

Public utilities under the Federal Power Act are required to obtain FERC acceptance of their rate schedules for wholesale sales of electricity. Each of the owners of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities nuclear power plants that generates electricity, as well as Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC, is a “public utility” under the Federal Power Act by virtue of making wholesale sales of electric energy and/or owning wholesale electric transmission facilities. The FERC has granted these generating and power marketing companies the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates. The FERC’s orders that grant the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating and power marketing companies market-based rate authority reserve the right to revoke or revise that authority if the FERC subsequently determines that the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business can exercise market power in transmission or generation, create barriers to entry, or engage in abusive affiliate transactions. In addition, the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ market-based sales are subject to certain market behavior rules, and if any of its generating and power marketing companies were deemed to have violated one of those rules, they would be subject to potential disgorgement of profits associated with the violation and/or suspension or revocation of their market-based rate authority and potential penalties of up to $1 million per day per violation. If the Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ generating or power marketing companies were to lose their market-based rate authority, such companies would be required to obtain the FERC’s acceptance of a cost-of-service rate schedule and could become subject to the accounting, record-keeping, and reporting requirements that are imposed on utilities with cost-based rate schedules. This could have an adverse effect on the rates the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business charges for power from its facilities.

The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business is also affected by legislative and regulatory changes, as well as changes to market design, market rules, tariffs, cost allocations, and bidding rules imposed by the existing Independent System Operators. The Independent System Operators that oversee most of the wholesale power markets may impose, and in the future may continue to impose, mitigation, including price limitations, offer caps and other mechanisms, to address some of the volatility and the potential exercise of market power in these markets. These types of price limitations and other regulatory mechanisms may have an adverse effect on the profitability of the Entergy Wholesale

The regulatory environment applicable to the electric power industry is subject to changes as a result of restructuring initiatives at both the state and federal levels. Entergy cannot predict the future design of the wholesale power markets or the ultimate effect that the changing regulatory environment will have on the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business. In addition, in some of these markets, interested parties have proposed material market design changes, including the elimination of a single clearing price mechanism, ~~and~~ have raised claims that the competitive marketplace is not working because energy prices in wholesale markets exceed the marginal cost of operating nuclear power plants, ~~as well as~~and have made proposals to re-regulate the markets, impose a generation tax, or require divestitures by generating companies to reduce their market share. Other proposals to re-regulate may be made and legislative or other attention to the electric power market restructuring process may delay or reverse the deregulation process, which

Entergy reviews long-lived assets held in all of its business segments whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that recoverability of these assets is uncertain. Generally, the determination of recoverability is based on the undiscounted net cash flows expected to result from the operations of such assets. Projected net cash flows depend on the expected operating life of the assets, the future operating costs associated with the assets, the efficiency and availability of the assets and generating units, and the future market and price for energy and capacity over the remaining life of the assets. In particular, the assets of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are subject to further impairment in connection with the closure or sale of the plants discussed below. Moreover, prior to the closure or sale of these plants, the failure of the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to achieve forecasted operating results and cash flows, an unfavorable change in forecasted operating results or cash flows, a reduction in the expected remaining useful life of a unit (including if the operating licenses for the Indian Point power plants are not renewed by the NRC), or a decline in observable industry market multiples could all result in potential additional impairment charges for the affected assets.

On August 27, 2013, Entergy announced its plan to close and decommission Vermont Yankee. Vermont Yankee ceased power production in the fourth quarter 2014 at the end of a fuel cycle. This decision was approved by the Board in August 2013, and resulted in the recognition of impairment charges in 2013 and 2014. In October 2015, Entergy determined that it will close the Pilgrim and FitzPatrick plants. The Pilgrim plant will cease operations no later than June 1, 2019. FitzPatrick was expected to shut down at the end of its current fuel cycle, planned for January 27, 2017, but in ~~August 2016,~~March 2017, Entergy ~~entered into an agreement to sell~~sold the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon Generation Company, LLC which ~~will continue~~continues to operate the plant. During the third quarter 2015, Entergy recorded impairment and other related charges to write down the carrying values of the FitzPatrick and Pilgrim plants and related assets to their fair values. In addition, in the fourth quarter 2015, Entergy recorded impairment and other related charges to write down the carrying value of the Palisades plant and related assets to their fair value. In December 2016, Entergy reached an agreement with Consumers Energy to terminate the PPA for the Palisades plant and to shut down the plant in ~~2018. If~~2018, but the agreement ~~receives regulatory approval, Palisades will~~was terminated in September 2017 after the Michigan Public Service Commission decided that Consumers Power could not recover costs incurred under the agreement. Entergy intends to shut down ~~in 2018.~~the Palisades plant permanently on May 31, 2022. In January 2017, Entergy announced that it reached a settlement with New York State and plans to close the Indian Point 2 plant in 2020 and the Indian Point 3 plant in 2021. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2016, Entergy recorded impairment and other related charges to write down the carrying values of the Palisades and Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 plants and related assets to their fair value. In addition to the impairments and other related charges, Entergy has incurred severance and employee retention costs and expects to incur additional charges through ~~2021~~2022 relating to the decisions to shut down Vermont Yankee, Palisades, Pilgrim, Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3, and the ~~decision to sell~~sale of FitzPatrick.

If Entergy concludes that any of its nuclear power plants is unlikely to operate through its ~~current useful life,~~planned shutdown date, which conclusion would be based on a variety of factors, such a conclusion could result in a further impairment of part or all of the carrying value of the plant. Any impairment charge taken by Entergy with respect to its long-lived assets, including the power plants owned by the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, would likely be material in the quarter that the charge is taken and could otherwise have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. For further information regarding evaluating long-lived assets for impairment, see the “Critical Accounting Estimates - Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries and for further discussion of the impairment charges, see Note 14 to the financial statements.

Entergy’s business is capital intensive and dependent upon its ability to access capital at reasonable rates and other terms. At times there are also spikes in the price for natural gas and other commodities that increase the liquidity requirements of the Utility operating companies and Entergy Wholesale Commodities. In addition, Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ liquidity needs could significantly increase in the event of a hurricane or other weather-related or unforeseen disaster similar to that experienced in Entergy’s service territory with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike in 2008, and Hurricane Isaac in 2012. The occurrence of one or more contingencies, including a delay in regulatory recovery of fuel or purchased power costs or storm restoration costs, higher than expected pension contributions, an acceleration of payments or decreased credit lines, less cash flow from operations than expected, or other unknown events, ~~such as future storms,~~ could cause the financing needs of Entergy and its subsidiaries to increase. In addition, accessing the debt capital markets more frequently in these situations may result in an increase in leverage. Material leverage increases could negatively affect the credit ratings of Entergy and the Utility operating companies, which in turn could negatively affect access to the capital markets.

The inability to raise capital on favorable terms, particularly during times of uncertainty in the capital markets, could negatively affect Entergy and its subsidiaries’ ability to maintain and to expand their businesses. Events beyond Entergy’s control ~~such as the volatility and disruption in global capital and credit markets in 2008 and 2009,~~ may create uncertainty that could increase its cost of capital or impair its ability to access the capital markets, including the ability to draw on its bank credit facilities. Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the degree of success they will have in renewing or replacing their credit facilities as they come up for renewal. Moreover, the size, terms, and covenants of any new credit facilities may not be comparable to, and may be more restrictive than, existing facilities. If Entergy and its subsidiaries are unable to access the credit and capital markets on terms that are reasonable, they may have to delay raising capital, issue shorter-term securities and/or bear an unfavorable cost of capital, which, in turn, could impact their ability to grow their businesses, decrease earnings, significantly reduce financial flexibility and/or limit Entergy Corporation’s ability to sustain its current common stock dividend level.

A downgrade in Entergy Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ credit ratings could negatively affect Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to access capital and/or could require Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries to post collateral, accelerate certain payments, or repay certain indebtedness.

There are a number of factors that rating agencies evaluate to arrive at credit ratings for each of Entergy Corporation and the Registrant Subsidiaries, including each Registrant’s regulatory framework, ability to recover costs and earn returns, diversification and financial strength and liquidity. If one or more rating agencies downgrade Entergy Corporation’s, any of the Utility operating companies’, or System Energy’s ratings, particularly below investment grade, borrowing costs would increase, the potential pool of investors and funding sources would likely decrease, and cash or letter of credit collateral demands may be triggered by the terms of a number of commodity contracts, leases, and other agreements.

Most of Entergy Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ large customers, suppliers, and counterparties require sufficient creditworthiness to enter into transactions. If Entergy Corporation’s or its subsidiaries’ ratings decline, particularly below investment grade, or if certain counterparties believe Entergy Corporation or the Utility operating companies are losing creditworthiness and demand adequate assurance under fuel, gas, and purchased power contracts, the counterparties may require posting of collateral in cash or letters of credit, prepayment for fuel, gas or purchased power or accelerated payment, or counterparties may decline business with Entergy Corporation or its subsidiaries. At December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, based on power prices at that time, Entergy had liquidity exposure of ~~$128~~$167 million under the guarantees in place supporting Entergy Wholesale Commodities transactions and $8 million of posted cash collateral. In the event of a decrease in Entergy Corporation’s credit rating to below investment grade, based on power prices as of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, Entergy would have been required to provide approximately ~~$57~~$98 million of additional cash or letters of credit under some of the agreements. In the event of a decrease in the credit ratings of Entergy’s Utility operating companies to below investment grade, those companies collectively could be required to provide up to $50 million of additional cash or letters of credit to MISO. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, the liquidity exposure associated with Entergy Wholesale Commodities assurance requirements, including return of previously received collateral from counterparties, would increase by ~~$238~~$372 million for a $1 per MMBtu increase in gas prices in both the short- and long-term markets.

The recently enacted H.R. 1, also known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, will significantly change the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, including taxation of U.S. corporations, by, among other things, reducing the federal corporate income tax rate, limiting interest deductions, and altering the expensing of capital expenditures. The legislation is unclear in certain respects and will require interpretations and implementing regulations by the IRS, as well as state tax authorities, and the legislation could be subject to potential amendments and technical corrections, any of which could lessen or increase certain impacts of the legislation. In addition, the regulatory treatment of the impacts of this legislation, particularly on companies like Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries, will be subject to the discretion of federal, state, and local public utility regulators.

As further described in Note 3 to the financial statements, Entergy recorded a reduction of certain of its net deferred income tax assets (including the value of its net operating loss carryforwards) and regulatory liabilities, resulting in a charge against earnings in the fourth quarter 2017 of $526 million, including a $34 million net-of-tax reduction of regulatory liabilities, and Entergy and the Utility operating companies recorded a reduction of approximately $3.7 billion on a consolidated basis in certain of its net deferred tax liabilities and a corresponding increase in net regulatory liabilities. Depending on the outcome of the ratemaking process, IRS examinations, or tax positions and elections that Entergy may elect, Entergy and the Registrant Subsidiaries may be required to record additional charges or credits to income tax expense. Further, the amount and timing of the return of the deferred taxes to customers is dependent upon the regulatory treatment received, and, if the Registrant Subsidiaries are unsuccessful in receiving balanced regulatory treatment, Entergy’s or the Utility operating companies’ cash flow could be materially adversely affected. Further, there may be other material effects resulting from the legislation that have not been identified. While Entergy plans to finance its cash needs that result from the Act through a combination of Registrant Subsidiary debt and Entergy Corporation debt and equity, there can be no assurance that Entergy or the Registrant Subsidiaries will obtain debt or equity financing on terms that are satisfactory or consistent with their current expectations.

In addition, while Moody’s changed the ratings outlooks for Entergy Corporation to negative from stable in reaction to the legislation, it is unclear when or how capital markets, other credit rating agencies, the FERC or state or local regulators may respond to this legislation. Entergy expects that certain financial metrics used by credit rating agencies will be negatively affected as a result of the return of excess deferred taxes to customers, increased debt, and the decrease in the Registrant Subsidiaries’ revenue requirements, and related decrease in operating cash flows, expected as a consequence of the lower federal corporate income tax rate while, at the same time, the loss of the bonus depreciation tax deduction will increase taxable income in the future. Also, the timing of the return of excess deferred income taxes

Entergy believes that interpretations and implementing regulations by the IRS, as well as potential amendments and technical corrections, could result in lessening the impacts of certain aspects of this legislation. If Entergy is unable to successfully pursue avenues to manage the effects of the new tax legislation, or if additional interpretations, regulations, amendments, or technical corrections exacerbate the effects of the legislation, the legislation could have a material effect on Entergy’s results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows, and could result in additional credit rating agency actions. Any such actions by credit rating agencies may make it more difficult and costly for Entergy to issue debt securities and certain other types of financing and could increase borrowing costs under its credit facilities.

For further information regarding the effects of the Act, see the “Income Tax Legislation” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy. Also, Note 3 to the financial statements contains additional discussion of the effect of the Act on 2017 results of operations and financial position, the provisions of the Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Act, and Note 2 to the financial statements discusses proceedings commenced or other responses by Entergy’s regulators to the Act.

Entergy and its subsidiaries make judgments regarding the potential tax effects of various transactions and results of operations to estimate their obligations to taxing authorities. These tax obligations include income, franchise, real estate, sales and use, and employment-related taxes. These judgments include provisions for potential adverse outcomes regarding tax positions that have been taken. Entergy and its subsidiaries also estimate their ability to utilize tax benefits, including those in the form of carryforwards for which the benefits have already been reflected in the financial statements. Changes in federal, state, or local tax laws, adverse tax audit results or adverse tax rulings on positions taken by Entergy and its subsidiaries could negatively affect Entergy’s, the Utility operating companies’, and System Energy’s results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. For further information regarding Entergy’s income taxes, see Note 3 to the financial statements.

From time to time, Entergy and its subsidiaries have pursued and may continue to pursue strategic transactions including merger, acquisition, divestiture, joint venture, restructuring or other strategic transactions. ~~In particular, as discussed in the “Entergy Wholesale Commodities Exit from the Merchant Power Business~~” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries, in August 2016, Entergy entered into an agreement to sell the FitzPatrick plant to Exelon Generation Company, LLC. Further,For example, in November 2016, Entergy announced that it ~~has~~had entered into a purchase and sale agreement with NorthStar for the sale of 100% of the membership interests in Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, which owns the Vermont Yankee plant. In addition, as part of Entergy’s plan to exit the merchant power business, it plans to shut down its remaining merchant nuclear power plants by ~~2021.~~mid-2022. These transactions and plans are or may become subject to regulatory approval and other material conditions or contingencies. The failure to complete these transactions or plans or any future strategic transaction successfully or on a timely basis could have an adverse effect on Entergy’s financial condition, results of operations and the market’s perception of Entergy’s ability to execute its strategy. Further, these transactions, and any completed or future strategic transactions, involve substantial risks, including the following:

Entergy may not be successful in managing these or any other significant risks that it may encounter in acquiring or divesting a business, or engaging in other strategic transactions, which could have a material ~~adverse~~ effect on its business.

Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ ability to complete construction of power generation facilities, or make other capital improvements, in a timely manner and within budget is contingent upon many variables and subject to substantial risks. These variables include, but are not limited to, project management expertise and escalating costs for materials, labor, and environmental compliance. Delays in obtaining permits, shortages in materials and qualified labor, suppliers and contractors not performing as required under their contracts, changes in the scope and timing of projects, poor quality initial cost estimates from contractors, the inability to raise capital on favorable terms, changes in commodity prices affecting revenue, fuel costs, or materials costs, downward changes in the economy, changes in law or regulation, including environmental compliance requirements, and other events beyond the control of the Utility operating companies or the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business may occur that may materially affect the schedule, cost, and performance of these projects. If these projects or other capital improvements are significantly delayed or become subject to cost overruns or cancellation, Entergy and the Utility operating companies could incur additional costs and termination payments, or face increased risk of potential write-off of the investment in the project. In addition, the Utility operating companies could be exposed to higher costs and market volatility, which could affect cash flow and cost recovery, should their respective regulators decline to approve the construction of new generation needed to meet the reliability needs of customers at the lowest reasonable cost.

For further information regarding capital expenditure plans and other uses of capital in connection with the potential construction of additional generation supply sources within the Utility operating companies’ service territory, and as to the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, see the “Capital Expenditure Plans and Other Uses of Capital” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy and each of the Registrant Subsidiaries.

The businesses in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business operate are subject to extensive environmental regulation by local, state, and federal authorities. These laws and regulations affect the manner in which the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business conduct their operations and make capital expenditures. These laws and regulations also affect how the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business manage air emissions, discharges to water, wetlands impacts, solid and hazardous waste storage and disposal, cooling and service water intake, the protection of threatened and endangered species, certain migratory birds and eagles, hazardous materials transportation, and similar matters. Federal, state, and local authorities continually revise these laws and regulations, and the laws and regulations are subject to judicial interpretation and to the permitting and enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies. Developing and implementing plans for facility compliance with these requirements can lead to capital, personnel, and operation and maintenance expenditures. Violations of these requirements can subject the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business to enforcement actions, capital expenditures to bring existing facilities into compliance, additional operating costs or operating restrictions to achieve compliance, remediation and clean-up costs, civil penalties, and exposure to third parties’ claims for alleged health or property damages or for violations of applicable permits or standards. In addition, the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business potentially are subject to liability under these laws for the costs of remediation of environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned or operated by the Utility operating companies, System Energy, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities and of property contaminated by hazardous substances they generate. The Utility operating companies are currently involved in proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been released and may be subject to additional proceedings in the future. The Utility operating companies, System Energy, and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to environmental compliance.

Emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, mercury, particulates, greenhouse gases, and other regulated air emissions from generating plants are potentially subject to increased regulation, controls and mitigation expenses. In addition, existing air regulations and programs promulgated by the EPA often are challenged legally, sometimes resulting in large-scale changes to anticipated regulatory regimes and the resulting need to shift course, both operationally and economically, depending on the nature of the changes. Risks relating to global climate change, initiatives to compel greenhouse gas emission reductions, and water availability issues are discussed below.

Entergy and its subsidiaries may not be able to obtain or maintain all required environmental regulatory approvals. If there is a delay in obtaining any required environmental regulatory approvals, or if Entergy and its subsidiaries fail to obtain, maintain, or comply with any such approval, the operation of its facilities could be stopped or become subject to additional costs. For further information regarding environmental regulation and environmental matters, see the “Regulation of Entergy’s Business – Environmental Regulation” section of Part I, Item 1.

Entergy’s business is subject to extensive and mandatory reliability standards. Such standards, which are established by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC), and other regional enforcement entities, are approved by the FERC and frequently are reviewed, amended, and supplemented. Failure to comply with such standards could result in the imposition of fines or civil penalties, and potential exposure to third party claims for alleged violations of such standards. The standards, as well as the laws and regulations that govern them, are subject to judicial interpretation and to the enforcement discretion vested in the implementing agencies. In addition to exposure to civil penalties and fines, the Utility operating companies have incurred and expect to incur significant costs related to compliance with new and existing reliability standards, including costs associated with the Utility operating companies’ transmission system and generation assets. The changes to the

The effects of weather and economic conditions, and the related impact on electricity and gas usage, may materially affect the Utility operating companies’ results of operations.

Temperatures above normal levels in the summer tend to increase electric cooling demand and revenues, and temperatures below normal levels in the winter tend to increase electric and gas heating demand and revenues. As a corollary, moderate temperatures in either season tend to decrease usage of energy and resulting revenues. Seasonal pricing differentials, coupled with higher consumption levels, typically cause the Utility operating companies to report higher revenues in the third quarter of the fiscal year than in the other quarters. Extreme weather conditions or storms, however, may stress the Utility operating companies’ generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on their ability to meet peak customer demand, increased regulatory oversight, and lower customer satisfaction. These extreme conditions could have a material effect on the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

Entergy’s electricity sales volumes are affected by a number of factors, including economic conditions, weather, customer bill sizes (large bills tend to induce conservation), trends in energy efficiency, new technologies and ~~self generation~~self-generation alternatives, including the willingness and ability of large industrial customers to develop co-generation facilities that greatly reduce their demand from Entergy. Some of these factors are inherently cyclical or temporary in nature, such as the weather or economic conditions, and rarely have a long-lasting effect on Entergy’s operating results. Others, such as the increasing adoption of energy efficient appliances, new building codes, distributed energy resources, energy storage, demand side management and new technologies such as rooftop solar are having a more permanent effect of reducing sales growth rates from historical norms. ~~Distributed generation has not had~~As a ~~substantive impact on Entergy’s electricity sales yet, but~~result of these emerging efficiencies and technologies, the Utility operating companies may experience lower usage per customer in the residential and commercial classes, and further advances have the potential to ~~do so~~limit sales growth in the future. Electricity sales to industrial customers, in particular, benefit from steady economic growth and favorable commodity ~~prices and~~prices; however, they are ~~also~~ sensitive to changes in conditions in the markets in which its customers operate. Any negative change in any of these or other factors has the potential to result in slower sales growth or sales declines and increased bad debt expense, which could materially affect Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

In an effort to address climate change concerns, federal, state, and local authorities are calling for additional laws and regulations aimed at known or suspected causes of climate change. For example, in response to the United States Supreme Court’s 2007 decision holding that the EPA has authority to regulate emissions of ~~CO2~~CO₂ and other “greenhouse gases” under the Clean Air Act, the EPA, various environmental interest groups, and other organizations are focusing considerable attention on ~~CO2~~CO₂ emissions from power generation facilities and their potential role in climate change. In 2010, the EPA promulgated its first regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions from certain vehicles and from new and significantly modified stationary sources of emissions, including electric generating units. During 2012 and 2014, the EPA proposed ~~CO2~~CO₂ emission standards for new and existing ~~sources;~~sources. The EPA finalized these standards in ~~2015.~~2015; however, in late 2017, the EPA proposed to repeal the regulations and issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for replacing certain aspects of the standards for existing sources. As examples of state action, in the Northeast, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ~~(RGGI)~~ establishes a cap on ~~CO2~~CO₂ emissions from electric power plants and requires generators to purchase emission permits to cover their ~~CO2~~CO₂ emissions, and a similar program has been

~~293~~

In addition to the regulatory and financial risks associated with climate change discussed above, potential physical risks from climate change include an increase in sea level, wind and storm surge damages, wetland and barrier island erosion, risks of flooding and changes in weather conditions, (such as increases in precipitation, drought, or changes in average temperatures), and potential increased impacts of extreme weather conditions or storms. Entergy subsidiaries own assets in, and serve, communities that are at risk from sea level rise, changes in weather conditions, storms, and loss of the protection offered by coastal wetlands. A significant portion of the nation’s oil and gas infrastructure is located in these areas and susceptible to storm damage that could be aggravated by wetland and barrier island erosion, which could give rise to fuel supply interruptions and price spikes. Entergy and its subsidiaries also face the risk that climate change could impact the availability and quality of water supply necessary for operations.

These and other physical changes could result in changes in customer demand, increased costs associated with repairing and maintaining generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems resulting in increased maintenance and capital costs (and potential increased financing needs), limits on the Entergy System’s ability to meet peak customer demand, increased regulatory oversight, and lower customer satisfaction. Also, to the extent that climate change adversely impacts the economic health of a region or results in energy conservation or demand side management programs, it may adversely impact customer demand and revenues. Such physical or operational risks could have a material effect on Entergy’s, Entergy Wholesale Commodities’, System Energy’s, and the Utility operating companies’ financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

Water is a vital natural resource that is also critical to the Utility operating companies’, System Energy’s, and Entergy Wholesale Commodities’ business operations. Entergy’s facilities use water for cooling, boiler make-up, sanitary uses, potable supply, and many other uses. ~~Two~~Three of Entergy’s Utility operating companies own and/or operate hydroelectric facilities. Accordingly, water availability and quality are critical to Entergy’s business operations. Impacts to water availability or quality could negatively impact both operations and revenues.

Entergy secures water through various mechanisms (ground water wells, surface waters intakes, municipal supply, etc.) and operates under the provisions and conditions set forth by the provider and/or regulatory authorities. Entergy also obtains and operates in substantial compliance with water discharge permits issued under

To manage near-term financial exposure related to commodity price fluctuations, Entergy and its subsidiaries, including the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business, may enter into contracts to hedge portions of their purchase and sale commitments, fuel requirements, and inventories of natural gas, uranium and its conversion and enrichment, coal, refined products, and other commodities, within established risk management guidelines. As part of this strategy, Entergy and its subsidiaries may utilize fixed- and variable-price forward physical purchase and sales contracts, futures, financial swaps, and option contracts traded in the over-the-counter markets or on exchanges. However, Entergy and its subsidiaries normally cover only a portion of the exposure of their assets and positions to market price volatility, and the coverage will vary over time. In addition, Entergy also elects to leave certain volumes during certain years unhedged. To the extent Entergy and its subsidiaries have unhedged positions, fluctuating commodity prices can materially affect Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ results of operations and financial position.

Although Entergy and its subsidiaries devote a considerable effort to these risk management strategies, they cannot eliminate all the risks associated with these activities. As a result of these and other factors, Entergy and its subsidiaries cannot predict with precision the impact that risk management decisions may have on their business, results of operations, or financial position.

Entergy’s over-the-counter financial derivatives are subject to rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that are designed to promote transparency, mitigate systemic risk and protect against market abuse. Entergy cannot predict the impact any proposed or not fully-implemented final rules will have on its ability to hedge its commodity price risk or on over-the-counter derivatives markets as a whole, but such rules and regulations could have a material effect on Entergy's risk exposure, as well as reduce market liquidity and further increase the cost of hedging activities.

Entergy has guaranteed or indemnified the performance of a portion of the obligations relating to hedging and risk management activities. Reductions in Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ credit quality or changes in the market prices of energy commodities could increase the cash or letter of credit collateral required to be posted in connection with hedging and risk management activities, which could materially affect Entergy’s or its subsidiaries’ liquidity and financial position.

The hedging and risk management practices of the Utility operating companies and the Entergy Wholesale Commodities business are exposed to the risk that counterparties that owe Entergy and its subsidiaries money, energy, or other commodities will not perform their obligations. Currently, some hedging agreements contain provisions that require the counterparties to provide credit support to secure all or part of their obligations to Entergy or its subsidiaries. If the counterparties to these arrangements fail to perform, Entergy or its subsidiaries may enforce and recover the proceeds from the credit support provided and acquire alternative hedging arrangements, which credit

The performance of the capital markets affects the values of the assets held in trust under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans. A decline in the market value of the assets may increase the funding requirements relating to Entergy’s benefit plan liabilities and also result in higher benefit costs. As the value of the assets decreases, the “expected return on assets” component of benefit costs decreases, resulting in higher benefits costs. Additionally, asset losses are incorporated into benefit costs over time, thus increasing benefits costs. Volatility in the capital markets has affected the market value of these assets, which may affect Entergy’s planned levels of contributions in the future. Additionally, changes in interest rates affect the liabilities under Entergy’s pension and postretirement benefit plans; as interest rates decrease, the liabilities increase, potentially requiring additional funding and recognition of higher liability carrying costs. The funding requirements of the obligations related to the pension benefit plans can also increase as a result of changes in, among other factors, retirement rates, life expectancy assumptions, or Federal regulations. For further information regarding Entergy’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans, refer to the “Critical Accounting Estimates – Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for Entergy and each of its Registrant Subsidiaries and Note 11 to the financial statements.

Entergy and its subsidiaries are involved in the ordinary course of business in a number of lawsuits involving employment, commercial, asbestos, hazardous material and ratepayer matters, and injuries and damages issues, among other matters. The states in which the Utility operating companies operate, in particular Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, have proven to be unusually litigious environments. Judges and juries in these states have demonstrated a willingness to grant large verdicts, including punitive damages, to plaintiffs in personal injury, property damage, and business tort cases. Entergy and its subsidiaries use legal and appropriate means to contest litigation threatened or filed against them, but the litigation environment in these states poses a significant business risk.

Domestic or international terrorist attacks, including cyber attacks, and failures or breaches of Entergy’s and its subsidiaries’ technology systems may adversely affect Entergy’s results of operations.

As power generators and distributors, Entergy and its subsidiaries face heightened risk of an act or threat of terrorism, including physical and cyber attacks, either as a direct act against one of Entergy’s generation facilities, transmission operations centers, or distribution infrastructure used to manage and transport power to customers. An actual act could affect Entergy’s ability to operate, including its ability to operate the information technology systems and network infrastructure on which it relies to conduct its business. While malware was recently discovered on our corporate network and remediated on a timely basis, it did not affect the company’s operational systems, nuclear plants or transmission network, nor did it have a material effect on our operations. Additionally, within Entergy’s industry, there have been attacks on energy infrastructure, but with minimal impact to operations, and there may be more attacks in the future. The Utility operating companies also face heightened risk of an act or threat by cyber criminals intent on accessing personal information for the purpose of committing identity ~~theft.~~theft, taking company-sensitive data, or disrupting the company’s ability to operate.

Entergy and its subsidiaries operate in a highly regulated industry that requires the continued operation of sophisticated information technology systems and network infrastructure in accordance with mandatory and prescriptive standards. Despite the implementation of multiple layers of security by Entergy and its subsidiaries,

~~If any~~Any such attacks, failures or breaches ~~were to occur,~~could have a material effect on Entergy’s and the Utility operating companies’ business, financial condition, ~~and~~ results of operations ~~could~~or reputation. Insurance may not be ~~materially and adversely affected.~~adequate to cover losses that might arise in connection with these events. The risk of such attacks, failures, or breaches may cause Entergy and the Utility operating companies to incur increased capital and operating costs to implement increased security for its ~~nuclear~~ power ~~plants~~generation, transmission, and distribution assets and other facilities, such as additional physical facility security and ~~additional~~ security personnel, and for systems to protect its information technology and network infrastructure systems. Such events may also expose Entergy to an increased risk of ~~judgments~~litigation (and associated damages and ~~fines.~~

Gas rates charged to retail gas customers are comprised primarily of purchased gas cost charges, which provide no return or profit to Entergy New Orleans, and distribution charges, which provide a return or profit to the utility. Distribution charges are affected by the amount of gas sold to customers. Purchased gas cost charges, which comprise most of a customer’s bill and may be adjusted monthly, represent gas commodity costs that Entergy New Orleans recovers from its customers. Entergy New Orleans’s cash flows can be affected by differences between the time period when gas is purchased and the time when ultimate recovery from customers occurs. When purchased gas cost charges increase substantially reflecting higher gas procurement costs incurred by Entergy New Orleans, customer usage may decrease, especially in weaker economic times, resulting in lower distribution charges for Entergy New Orleans, which could adversely affect results of operations.

System Energy’s operating revenues are derived from the allocation of the capacity, energy, and related costs associated with its 90% ownership/leasehold interest in Grand Gulf. Charges under the Unit Power Sales Agreement are paid by the Utility operating companies as consideration for their respective entitlements to receive capacity and energy. The useful economic life of Grand Gulf is finite and is limited by the terms of its operating license, which expires in November 2044. System Energy’s financial condition depends both on the receipt of payments from the Utility operating companies under the Unit Power Sales Agreement and on the continued commercial operation of Grand Gulf.

For information regarding the Unit Power Sales Agreement, the sale and leaseback transactions and certain other agreements relating to the Entergy System companies’ support of System Energy (including the Capital Funds

Entergy Corporation is a holding company with no material revenue generating operations of its own or material assets other than the stock of its subsidiaries. Accordingly, all of its operations are conducted by its subsidiaries. Entergy Corporation’s ability to satisfy its financial obligations, including the payment of interest and principal on its outstanding debt, and to pay dividends on its common stock depends on the payment to it of dividends

Net income decreased $27.4 million primarily due to higher nuclear refueling outage expenses, higher depreciation and amortization expenses, higher taxes other than income taxes, and higher interest expense, partially offset by higher other income.

Net income increased $92.9 million primarily due to higher net revenue and lower other operation and maintenance expenses, partially offset by a higher effective income tax rate and higher depreciation and amortization expenses.

Net ~~income decreased $47.1 million~~revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges (credits). Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2017 to 2016.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to ~~higher other operation~~the implementation of formula rate plan rates effective with the first billing cycle of January 2017 and ~~maintenance expenses,~~an increase in base rates effective February 24, 2016, each as approved by the APSC. A significant portion of the base rate increase was related to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station in March 2016. The increase was partially offset by ~~higher net revenue.~~decreases in the energy efficiency rider, as approved by the APSC, effective April 2016 and January 2017. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate case and formula rate plan filings. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

~~Net Revenue~~The opportunity sales variance results from the estimated net revenue effect of the 2017 and 2016 FERC orders in the opportunity sales proceeding attributable to wholesale customers. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the opportunity sales proceeding.

The asset retirement obligation affects net revenue because Entergy Arkansas records a regulatory charge or credit for the difference between asset retirement obligation-related expenses and decommissioning trust fund earnings plus asset retirement obligation-related costs collected in revenue. The variance is primarily caused by a decrease in regulatory credits because of an increase in decommissioning trust fund earnings, including portfolio rebalancing for the ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning trust funds.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales during the billed and unbilled sales periods. The decrease was partially offset by an increase of 733 GWh, or 11%, in industrial usage primarily due to a new customer in the primary metals industry.

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges (credits). Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to an increase in base rates, as approved by the APSC. The new base rates were effective February 24, 2016 and began billing with the first billing cycle of April 2016. The increase includes an interim base rate adjustment surcharge, effective with the first billing cycle of April 2016, to recover the incremental revenue requirement for the period February 24, 2016 through March 31, 2016. A significant portion of the increase iswas related to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power ~~Station.~~Station in March 2016. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the rate case. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

Nuclear refueling outage expenses increased primarily due to the amortization of higher costs associated with the most recent outages compared to previous outages.

Other operation and maintenance expenses increased primarily due to:

~~The retail electric price variance is~~Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to an increase in ~~the energy efficiency rider, as approved by the APSC, effective July 2014~~ad valorem taxes primarily due to higher assessments and ~~July 2015.~~

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station purchased in March 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

Other ~~Income Statement Variances~~income increased primarily due to higher realized gains in 2017 compared to 2016 on the decommissioning trust fund investments, including portfolio rebalancing for the ANO 1 and ANO 2 decommissioning trust funds.

Interest expense increased primarily due to:

Nuclear refueling outage expenses increased primarily due to the amortization of higher costs associated with the most recent outages as compared to ~~the~~ previous outages.

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

Taxes other than income taxes decreased primarily due to a decrease in local franchise taxes resulting from lower residential and commercial revenues as compared to the prior year and a decrease in payroll taxes.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station purchased in March 2016. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

Interest expense increased primarily due to:

The effective income tax rates for 2017, 2016, and 2015 ~~and 2014~~ were 40.1%, 39.2%, ~~35.3%,~~ and ~~40.8%~~35.3%, respectively. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 35% to the effective income tax rates.

~~In March 2013, during a scheduled refueling outage at ANO 1, a contractor-owned~~See the “Income Tax Legislation” section of Entergy Corporation and ~~operated heavy-lifting apparatus collapsed while moving the generator stator out~~Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the ~~turbine building. The collapse resulted~~Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal income tax legislation enacted in December 2017. Note 3 to the ~~death~~financial statements contains additional discussion of ~~an ironworker~~the effect of the Act on 2017 results of operations and ~~injuries to several other contract workers, caused ANO~~financial position, the provisions of the Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Act, and Note 2 to ~~shut down, and damaged~~ the ANO turbine building. The total cost of assessment, restoration of off-site power, site restoration, debris removal, and replacement of damaged property and equipment was approximately $95 million. Entergy Arkansas is pursuing its options for recovering damages that resulted from the stator drop, including its insurance coverage and legal action. During 2014, Entergy Arkansas collected $50 million from Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), a mutual insurance company that provides property damage coveragefinancial statements discusses proceedings commenced or other responses by Entergy’s regulators to the ~~members’ nuclear generating plants. Litigation remains pending.~~Act.

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $121 million in 2017 primarily due to income tax refunds of $8.1 million in 2017 compared to income tax refunds of $135.7 million in 2016. Entergy Arkansas had income tax refunds in 2016 and 2017 in accordance with an intercompany income tax allocation agreement. The income tax refunds in 2017 resulted from the utilization of Entergy Arkansas’s net operating losses. The 2016 income tax refunds resulted primarily from adjustments associated with the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a discussion of the income tax audit.

Net cash flow provided by operating activities increased $201.6 million in 2016 primarily due to:

Net cash flow used in investing activities decreased $118.7 million in 2017 primarily due to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station in March 2016 for approximately $237 million and a decrease of $35.5 million in transmission construction expenditures primarily due to a lower scope of work performed in 2017. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase.

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $262.7 million in 2016 primarily due to the purchase of Power Block 2 of the Union Power Station in March 2016 for approximately $237 million. See Note 14 to the financial statements for further discussion of the Union Power Station purchase. The increase was partially offset by ~~the~~ fluctuations in nuclear fuel activity because of variations from year to year in the timing and pricing of fuel reload requirements in the Utility business, material and service deliveries, and the timing of cash payments during the nuclear fuel cycle.

Net cash flow ~~used in investing~~provided by financing activities ~~increased $84.6~~decreased $23.4 million in ~~2015~~2017 primarily due to:

~~Decreases~~Increases in Entergy Arkansas’s ~~receivable from~~payable to the money pool are a source of cash flow, and Entergy Arkansas’s ~~receivable from~~payable to the money pool ~~decreased~~increased by ~~$2.2~~$114.9 million in ~~2015~~2017 compared to decreasing by ~~$15.3~~$1.5 million in ~~2014.~~2016. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.

Net cash flow provided by financing activities increased $281.8 million in 2016 primarily due to:

Decreases in Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool are a use of cash flow, and Entergy Arkansas’s payable to the money pool decreased by $1.5 million in 2016 compared to increasing by $52.7 million in 2015.

Entergy Arkansas’s capitalization is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table. The decrease in the debt to capital ratio for Entergy Arkansas is primarily due to the capital contribution received from Entergy Corporation in March 2016, partially offset by the issuance of long-term debt in 2016 and the redemption of $75 million of 6.45% Series preferred stock and $10 million of 6.08% Series preferred stock, as discussed above.

Entergy Arkansas seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings. To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a dividend, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the targeted capital structure. To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Arkansas may issue incremental debt or reduce dividends, or both, to maintain its targeted capital structure. In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing dividends, Entergy Arkansas may receive equity contributions to maintain the targeted capital structure.

Entergy Arkansas requires capital resources for:

Following are the amounts of Entergy Arkansas’s existing debt and lease obligations (includes estimated interest payments) and other purchase obligations.

Also in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy Arkansas has ~~$2.5~~($117.7) million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.

In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Arkansas includes specific investments, such as transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to enhance reliability and improve service to customers, including ~~initial~~ investment to support advanced metering; resource planning, including potential generation projects; system improvements; investments in ~~the nuclear fleet, as discussed below in “Nuclear Matters~~;”ANO 1 and 2; and other investments. Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements, environmental compliance, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, business restructuring, changes in project plans, and the ability to access capital. Management provides more information on long-term debt and preferred stock maturities in Notes 5 and 6 to the financial statements.

As discussed above in “Capital Structure,” Entergy Arkansas routinely evaluates its ability to pay dividends to Entergy Corporation from its earnings. Provisions in Entergy Arkansas’s articles of incorporation relating to preferred

In September 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed an application seeking a finding from the APSC that Entergy Arkansas’s deployment of AMI is in the public interest. Entergy Arkansas proposed to replace existing meters with advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Arkansas’s modernized power grid. The filing included an estimate of implementation costs for AMI of $208 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, and Entergy Arkansas provided a cost benefit analysis showing that its AMI deployment is expected to produce a nominal net benefit to customers of $406 million. Entergy Arkansas also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value of existing meters, which was approximately $57 million at December 31, 2015, that will be retired as part of the AMI deployment and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Arkansas proposed a 15-year depreciable life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. Deployment of the communications network is expected to begin in 2018. Entergy Arkansas proposed to include the AMI deployment costs and the quantified benefits in future formula rate plan filings, and the 2018 costs were approved in the 2017 formula rate plan filing. In June 2017 the APSC staff and Arkansas Attorney General filed direct testimony. The APSC staff generally supported Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment conditioned on various recommendations. The Arkansas Attorney General’s consultant primarily recommended denial of Entergy Arkansas’s application but alternatively suggested recommendations in the event the APSC approves Entergy Arkansas’s proposal. Entergy Arkansas filed rebuttal testimony in June 2017, substantially accepting the APSC staff’s recommendations. In August 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement. In October 2017 the APSC issued an order finding that Entergy Arkansas’s AMI deployment is in the public interest and approving the settlement agreement subject to a minor modification. Entergy Arkansas expects to recover the undepreciated balance of its existing meters through a regulatory asset to be amortized over 15 years. Entergy Arkansas has begun discussions with the other parties to implement the items in the settlement agreement including pre-pay and time of use programs.

Entergy Arkansas’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

Entergy Arkansas may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt and preferred stock prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest and dividend rates are favorable.

All debt and common and preferred stock issuances by Entergy Arkansas require prior regulatory approval. Preferred stock and debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in Entergy Arkansas’s corporate charters, bond indentures, and other agreements. Entergy Arkansas has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.

Entergy Arkansas’s receivables from or (payables to) the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.

Entergy Arkansas has a credit facility in the amount of $150 million scheduled to expire in August ~~2021.~~2022. Entergy Arkansas also has a $20 million credit facility scheduled to expire in April ~~2017.~~2018. The $150 million credit facility ~~allows Entergy Arkansas to issue~~permits the issuance of letters of credit against ~~50%~~$5 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, there were no cash borrowings and no letters of credit outstanding under the credit facilities. In addition, Entergy Arkansas is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations ~~under~~to MISO. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, a $1 million letter of credit was outstanding under Entergy Arkansas’s uncommitted letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for ~~additional~~further discussion of the credit facilities.

The Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest entity has a credit facility in the amount of $80 million scheduled to expire in May 2019. As of December 31, ~~2016, no~~2017, $50 million in letters of credit ~~were outstanding under the credit facility~~ to support a like amount of commercial paper issued byand $24.9 million in loans were outstanding under the Entergy Arkansas nuclear fuel company variable interest ~~entity.~~entity credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for ~~additional~~further discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility.

Entergy Arkansas obtained authorizations from the FERC through October ~~2017~~2019 for short-term borrowings not to exceed an aggregate amount of $250 million at any time outstanding and ~~long-term~~ borrowings by its nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. See Note 4 to the financial statements for further discussion of Entergy Arkansas’s short-term borrowing limits. The long-term securities issuances of Entergy Arkansas are limited to amounts authorized by the APSC, and the ~~Tennessee Regulatory Authority; the~~ current ~~authorizations extend~~authorization extends through December 2018.

In March 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC for a general change in rates, charges, and tariffs. The filing assumed Entergy Arkansas’s transition to MISO in December 2013, and requested a rate increase of $174 million, including $49 million of revenue being transferred from collection in riders to base rates. The filing also proposed a new transmission rider and a capacity cost recovery rider. The filing requested a 10.4% return on common equity. In September 2013, Entergy Arkansas filed testimony reflecting an updated rate increase request of $145 million, with no change to its requested return on common equity of 10.4%. Hearings in the proceeding began in October 2013, and in December 2013 the APSC issued an order. The order authorized a base rate increase of $81 million and included an authorized return on common equity of 9.3%. The order allowed Entergy Arkansas to amortize its human capital management costs over a three-and-a-half year period. New rates under the January 2014 order were implemented in the first billing cycle of March 2014 and were effective as of January 2014. Additionally, in January 2014, Entergy Arkansas filed a petition for rehearing or clarification of several aspects of the APSC’s order, including the 9.3% authorized return on common equity. In February 2014 the APSC granted Entergy Arkansas’s petition for the purpose of considering the additional evidence identified by Entergy Arkansas. In August 2014 the APSC issued an order amending certain aspects of the original order, including providing for a 9.5% authorized return on common equity. Pursuant to the August 2014 order, revised rates were effective for all bills rendered after December 31, 2013 and were implemented in the first billing cycle of October 2014.

In July 2016, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2016 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing requested a $67.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve

In ~~September 2016,~~July 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC its 2017 formula rate plan filing showing Entergy Arkansas’s projected earned return on common equity for the twelve months ended December 31, 2018 test period to be below the formula rate plan bandwidth. The filing projected a $129.7 million revenue requirement increase to achieve Entergy Arkansas’s target earned return on common equity of 9.75%. Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan is subject to a four percent annual revenue constraint and the projected annual revenue requirement increase exceeded the four percent, resulting in a proposed increase for the 2017 formula rate plan of $70.9 million. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas filed with the APSC revised formula rate plan attachments that projected a $126.2 million revenue requirement increase based on acceptance of certain adjustments and recommendations made by the APSC staff and other intervenors. The revised formula rate plan filing included a proposed $71.1 million revenue requirement increase based on a revision to the four percent constraint calculation. In October 2017, Entergy Arkansas and the parties to the proceeding filed a joint motion to approve a unanimous settlement agreement resolving all issues in the docket and providing for recovery of the 2017 and 2018 nuclear costs. In December 2017 the APSC approved the settlement agreement and the $71.1 million revenue requirement increase, as well as Entergy Arkansas’s formula rate plan compliance tariff, and the rates became effective with the first billing cycle of January 2018.

The APSC approved a production cost allocation rider for recovery from customers of the retail portion of the costs allocated to Entergy Arkansas as a result of the System Agreement ~~proceedings.~~proceedings, which are discussed in the “System Agreement Cost Equalization Proceedings” section below. These costs cause an increase in Entergy Arkansas’s deferred fuel cost balance because Entergy Arkansas pays the costs over seven months but collects ~~them~~the costs from customers over twelve months. ~~See Note 2 to the financial statements and Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries “MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS~~ -~~System Agreement” for discussions of the System Agreement proceedings.~~

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

~~312~~

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

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

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

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

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

In June 2009 the LPSC filed a complaint requesting that the FERC determine that certain of Entergy Arkansas’s sales of electric energy to third parties: (a) violated the provisions of the System Agreement that ~~allocate~~allocated the energy generated by Entergy System resources, (b) imprudently denied the Entergy System and its ultimate consumers the benefits of low-cost Entergy System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provision of the System Agreement that ~~prohibits~~prohibited sales to third parties by individual companies absent an offer of a right-of-first-refusal to other Utility operating companies. The LPSC’s complaint ~~challenges~~challenged sales made beginning in 2002 and requests refunds. In July 2009 the Utility operating companies filed a response to the complaint requesting that the FERC dismiss the complaint on the merits without hearing because the LPSC has failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the System Agreement and failed to produce any evidence of imprudent action by the Entergy System. In their response, the Utility operating companies explained that the System Agreement clearly contemplates that the Utility operating companies may make sales to third parties for their own account, subject to the requirement that those sales be included in the load (or load shape) for the applicable Utility operating company. The FERC subsequently ordered a hearing in the proceeding.

The LPSC filed direct testimony in the proceeding alleging, among other things, (1) that Entergy violated the System Agreement by permitting Entergy Arkansas to make non-requirements sales to non-affiliated third parties rather than making such energy available to the other Utility operating companies’ customers; and (2) that over the period 2000 - 2009, these non-requirements sales caused harm to the Utility operating companies’ customers and these customers should be compensated for this harm by Entergy. In subsequent testimony, the LPSC modified its original damages claim in favor of quantifying damages by re-running intra-system bills. The Utility operating companies believe the LPSC’s allegations are without merit. A hearing in the matter was held in August 2010.

In December 2010 the ALJ issued an initial decision. The ALJ found that the System Agreement allowed for Entergy Arkansas to make the sales to third parties but concluded that the sales should be accounted for in the same manner as joint account sales. The ALJ concluded that “shareholders” should make refunds of the damages to the Utility operating companies, along with interest. Entergy disagreed with several aspects of the ALJ’s initial decision and in January 2011 filed with the FERC exceptions to the decision.

The FERC issued a decision in June 2012 and held that, while the System Agreement is ambiguous, it does provide authority for individual Utility operating companies to make opportunity sales for their own account and Entergy Arkansas made and priced these sales in good faith. The FERC found, however, that the System Agreement does not provide authority for an individual Utility operating company to allocate the energy associated with such opportunity sales as part of its load, but provides a different allocation authority. The FERC further found that the after-the-fact accounting methodology used to allocate the energy used to supply the sales was inconsistent with the System Agreement. Quantifying the effect of the FERC’s decision ~~will require~~requires re-running intra-system bills for a ten-year period, and the FERC in its decision established further hearing procedures to determine the calculation of the effects. In July 2012, Entergy and the LPSC filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s June 2012 ~~decision, which are pending with the FERC.~~

In August 2013 the presiding judge issued an initial decision in the calculation proceeding. The initial decision ~~concludes~~concluded that the methodology proposed by the LPSC, rather than the methodologies proposed by Entergy or the FERC Staff, should be used to calculate the payments that Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The initial decision also ~~concludes~~concluded that the other System Agreement service schedules should not be adjusted and that payments by Entergy Arkansas should not be reflected in the rough production cost equalization bandwidth calculations for the applicable years. The initial decision ~~does recognize~~recognized that the LPSC’s methodology would result in an inequitable windfall to the other Utility operating companies and, therefore, ~~concludes~~concluded that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The LPSC, APSC, City Council, and FERC staff filed briefs on exceptions and/or briefs opposing exceptions. Entergy filed a brief on exceptions requesting that the FERC reverse the initial decision and a brief opposing certain exceptions taken by the LPSC and FERC staff.

In April 2016 the FERC issued orders addressing ~~the~~ requests for rehearing filed in July 2012 and the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision. The first order ~~denies~~denied Entergy’s request for rehearing and ~~affirms~~affirmed the FERC’s earlier rulings that Entergy’s original methodology for allocating energy costs to the opportunity sales was incorrect and, as a result, Entergy Arkansas must make payments to the other Utility operating companies to put them in the same position that they would have been in absent the incorrect allocation. The FERC clarified that interest should be included with the payments. The second order affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the rulings in the ALJ’s August 2013 initial decision regarding the methodology that should be used to calculate the payments Entergy Arkansas is to make to the other Utility operating companies. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that a full re-run of intra-system bills should be performed, but required that methodology be modified so that the sales have the same priority for purposes of energy allocation as joint account sales. The FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision that any payments by Entergy Arkansas should be reduced by 20%. The FERC also reversed the ALJ’s decision that adjustments to other System Agreement service schedules and excess bandwidth payments should not be taken into account when calculating the payments to be made by Entergy Arkansas. The FERC held that such adjustments and excess bandwidth payments should be taken into account, but ordered further proceedings before an ALJ to address whether a cap on any reduction due to bandwidth payments was necessary and to implement the other adjustments to the calculation methodology.

The effect of the FERC’s decisions, if upheld, is that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. As part of the further proceedings required by the FERC, Entergy has performed an initial re-run of the intra-system bills for the ten-year period (2000-2009) to attempt to quantify the effects of the FERC's rulings. The ALJ will issue an initial decision and FERC will issue an order reviewing that decision. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing that

Pursuant to the procedural schedule ~~was~~ established ~~with a hearing~~ in ~~May 2017 and an initial decision expected in August 2017. Pursuant to that procedural schedule,~~the case, Entergy Services re-ran intra-system bills for the ten-year period 2000-2009 to quantify the effects of the ~~FERC’s~~FERC's ruling. ~~The~~In November 2016 the LPSC submitted testimony disputing certain aspects of the ~~calculations,~~calculations. A hearing was held in May 2017. In July 2017, the ALJ issued an initial decision concluding that Entergy Arkansas should pay $86 million plus interest to the other Utility operating companies. In August 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, and FERC staff filed individual briefs on exceptions challenging various aspects of the initial decision. In September 2017 the Utility operating companies, the LPSC, the APSC, the MPSC, the City Council, and FERC staff filed separate briefs opposing exceptions taken by various parties. The case is pending before the FERC. No payments will be made or received by the Utility operating companies until the FERC issues an order reviewing the initial decision and Entergy ~~Services~~submits a subsequent filing to comply with that order.

The effect of the FERC’s decisions thus far in the case would be that Entergy Arkansas will make payments to some or all of the other Utility operating companies. Because further proceedings will still occur in the case, the amount and recipients of payments by Entergy Arkansas are unknown at this time. Based on testimony previously submitted ~~answering testimony.~~in the case and its assessment of the April 2016 FERC orders, in the first quarter 2016, Entergy Arkansas recorded a liability of $87 million, which includes interest, for its estimated increased costs and payment to the other Utility operating companies. This estimate is subject to change depending on how the FERC resolves the issues that are still outstanding in the case, including its review of the July 2017 initial decision. Entergy Arkansas’s increased costs will be attributed to Entergy Arkansas’s retail and wholesale businesses, and it is not probable that Entergy Arkansas will recover the wholesale portion. Entergy Arkansas, therefore, recorded a deferred fuel regulatory asset in the first quarter 2016 of approximately $75 million, which represents its estimate of the retail portion of the costs. Following its assessment of the course of the proceedings, including the FERC’s denial of rehearing in November 2017

See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation – Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.

Entergy Arkansas owns and, ~~operates,~~ through an affiliate, operates the ANO 1 and ANO 2 nuclear power plants. Entergy Arkansas is, therefore, subject to the risks related to owning and operating nuclear plants. These include risks ~~from~~related to: the use, storage, and handling and disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive materials; the substantial financial requirements, both for capital investments and operational needs, to position Entergy’s nuclear fleet to meet its operational goals, including the financial requirements to address emerging issues like stress corrosion cracking of certain materials within the plant systems and the Fukushima event; regulatory ~~requirement~~requirements and potential future regulatory changes, including changes ~~resulting from events at other plants,~~affecting the regulations governing nuclear plant ownership, operations, license renewal and amendments, and decommissioning; the performance and capacity factors of these nuclear plants; the availability of interim or permanent sites for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, including the fees charged for such disposal; the sufficiency of nuclear decommissioning trust fund assets and earnings to complete decommissioning of each site when required; and limitations on the amounts and types of insurance commercially available for losses in connection with nuclear plant operations and ~~technological and financial uncertainties related to decommissioning~~catastrophic events such as a nuclear ~~plants at the end of their licensed lives, including the sufficiency of funds in decommissioning trusts.~~accident. In the event of an unanticipated early shutdown of either ANO 1 or ANO 2, Entergy Arkansas may be required to file with the APSC a rate mechanism to provide additional funds or credit support to satisfy regulatory requirements for decommissioning.

~~In 2016, Entergy conducted a comprehensive evaluation of~~See Note 8 to the Entergy nuclear fleet and determined that it is necessary to increase investments in its nuclear plants to position the fleet to meet its operational goals. These investments will result in increased operating and capital costs associated with operating Entergy’s nuclear plants going forward. The preliminary estimates of the increase to planned capital costs for 2017 through 2019 identified through and associated with this initiative are estimated to be $290 million for Entergy Arkansas. The current estimates of the capital costs identified through this initiative are included in Entergy Arkansas’s preliminary capital investment plan estimate for 2017 through 2019 given in “~~Liquidity and Capital Resources~~ - ~~Uses of Capital~~”above. The increase to planned other operation and maintenance expenses identified through and associated with this initiative is preliminarily estimated to be approximately $35 million in 2017 for Entergy Arkansas, with a similar level of expenses expected to continue going forward. In addition, nuclear refueling outage expenses are expected to increase going forward.

Entergy Arkansas’s facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various governmental authorities having jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, control of toxic substances and hazardous and solid wastes, and other environmental matters. Management believes that Entergy Arkansas is in substantial compliance with environmental regulations currently applicable to its facilities and ~~operations.~~operations, with reference to possible exceptions noted in “Regulation of Entergy’s Business - Environmental Regulation” in Part I, Item 1. Because environmental regulations are subject to change, future compliance costs cannot be precisely estimated.

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

See “Nuclear Decommissioning Costs” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates inherent in accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs.

See “Utility Regulatory Accounting” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of accounting for the effects of rate regulation.

See “Unbilled Revenue” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the unbilled revenue amounts.

See “Impairment of Long-lived Assets and Trust Fund Investments” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the estimates associated with the impairment of long-lived assets and trust fund investments.

See “Taxation and Uncertain Tax Positions” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion.

Entergy Arkansas’s qualified pension and other postretirement reported costs, as described in Note 11 to the financial statements, are impacted by numerous factors including the provisions of the plans, changing employee demographics, and various actuarial calculations, assumptions, and accounting mechanisms. See the “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for further discussion. Because of the complexity

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of qualified pension cost and qualified projected benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).

Total qualified pension cost for Entergy Arkansas in ~~2016~~2017 was ~~$37.6~~$37 million. Entergy Arkansas anticipates ~~2017~~2018 qualified pension cost to be ~~$37~~$43 million. In 2016, Entergy Arkansas refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of qualified pension costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified pension costs by $13.3 million. Entergy Arkansas contributed ~~$83~~$79.6 million to its qualified pension plan in ~~2016~~2017 and estimates pension contributions will be approximately ~~$79.4~~$64.1 million in ~~2017,~~2018, although the ~~2017~~2018 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, ~~2017~~2018 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, ~~2017.~~2018.

Total other postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income for Entergy Arkansas in ~~2016~~2017 was ~~$5.9~~$4 million. Entergy Arkansas expects ~~2017~~2018 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit income of approximately $4$10.2 million. In 2016, Entergy Arkansas refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of other postretirement costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified other postretirement costs by $2.5 million. Entergy Arkansas contributed ~~$5.6 million~~$695 thousand to its other postretirement plans in ~~2016~~2017 and estimates ~~2017~~2018 contributions will be approximately ~~$525~~$472 thousand.

See “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits - Federal Healthcare Legislation” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of Federal Healthcare Legislation.

See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.

See “New Accounting Pronouncements” section of ~~Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis~~Note 1 to the financial statements for ~~further discussion.~~a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.

Net income decreased $305.7 million primarily due to the effect of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, which resulted in a decrease of $182.6 million in net income in 2017, and the effect of a settlement with the IRS related to the 2010-2011 IRS audit, which resulted in a $136.1 million reduction of income tax expense in 2016. Also contributing to the decrease in net income were higher other operation and maintenance expenses. The decrease was partially offset by higher net revenue and higher other income. See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the IRS audit.

Net income increased $175.4 million primarily due to the effect of a settlement with the IRS related to the 2010-2011 IRS audit, which resulted in a $136.1 million reduction of income tax ~~expense.~~expense in 2016. Also contributing to the increase were lower other operation and maintenance expenses, higher net revenue, and higher other income. The increase was partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization expenses, higher interest expense, and higher nuclear refueling outage expenses.

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges (credits). Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2017 to 2016.

The regulatory credit resulting from reduction of the federal corporate income tax rate variance is due to the reduction of the Vidalia purchased power agreement regulatory liability by $30.5 million and the reduction of the Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation regulatory liabilities by $25 million as a result of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, which lowered the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed further in Note 3 to the financial statements.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to an increase in formula rate plan revenues, implemented with the first billing cycle of March 2016, to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement related to the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station in March 2016 and a provision recorded in 2016 related to the settlement of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the formula rate plan revenues and the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding.

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

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales and decreased usage during the unbilled sales period. The decrease was partially offset by an increase of 1,237 GWh, or 4%, in industrial usage primarily due to an increase in demand from existing customers and expansion projects in the chemicals industry.

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to an increase in formula rate plan revenues, implemented with the first billing cycle of March 2016, to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement related to the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion.

The ~~transmission equalization variance is primarily due to changes in transmission investments, including Entergy Louisiana’s exit from the System Agreement in August 2016.~~

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

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

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

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station purchased in March 2016, and the effects of recording in third quarter 2016 final court decisions in the River Bend and Waterford 3 lawsuits against the DOE related to spent nuclear fuel storage costs. The damages awarded include the reimbursement of approximately $6 million of spent nuclear fuel storage costs previously recorded as depreciation expense. See Note 14 to the financial statements for discussion of the ~~recovery~~Union Power Station purchase. See Note 8 to the financial statements for discussion of ~~non-fuel MISO-related charges.~~

Other ~~Income Statement Variances~~income increased primarily due to an increase in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2017, which includes the St. Charles Power Station project, and higher realized gains in 2017 on the River Bend decommissioning trust fund investments, including portfolio rebalancing to the 30% interest in River Bend formerly owned by Cajun.

Interest expense decreased primarily due to an increase in the allowance for borrowed funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2017, which includes the St. Charles Power Station project.

Nuclear refueling outage expenses increased primarily due to the amortization of higher expenses associated with the refueling outages at Waterford 3.

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station purchased in March 2016.

Other income increased primarily due to an increase in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2016, which included the St. Charles Power Station project, and increased distribution and transmission spending. The increase was also due to higher ~~trust~~ income in 2016 on the River Bend and Waterford 3 decommissioning trust fund investments.

Interest expense increased primarily due to:

The effective income tax rates for 2017, 2016, and 2015 ~~and 2014,~~ were 60.5%, 12.6%, and 28.6%, respectively. The difference in the effective income tax rate of 60.5% for 2017 versus the statutory rate of 35% for 2017 was primarily due to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and ~~29.3%, respectively.~~Jobs Act, signed by President Trump in December 2017, which changed the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective in 2018. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The difference in the effective income tax rate of 12.6% for 2016 versus the statutory rate of 35% for 2016 was primarily

~~In 2016~~See the ~~Louisiana Legislature conducted special sessions which resulted in various corporate tax changes. A summary~~“Income Tax Legislation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the ~~changes follows:~~

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 were as follows:

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $117.6 million in 2016 primarily due to:

Decreases in Entergy Louisiana’s receivable from the money pool are a source of cash flow, and Entergy Louisiana’s receivable from the money pool decreased by ~~increased net revenue, as discussed above.~~$11.3 million in 2017 compared to increasing by $16.3 million in 2016. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased $479.9 million in 2016 primarily due to:

Net cash flow ~~used in investing~~provided by financing activities decreased ~~$335.8~~$343 million in ~~2015 primarily due to:~~

Entergy Louisiana’s financing activities provided $614.9 million of cash in 2016 compared to using $446.7 million in 2015 primarily due to the following activity:

Entergy Louisiana’s capitalization is balanced between equity and debt, as shown in the following table. ~~The increase in the debt to capital ratio for Entergy Louisiana is primarily due to the issuance of long-term debt in 2016.~~

Entergy Louisiana seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings. To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a dividend, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the targeted capital structure. To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy Louisiana may issue incremental debt or reduce dividends, or both, to maintain its targeted capital structure. In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing dividends, Entergy Louisiana may receive equity contributions to maintain the targeted capital structure.

Entergy Louisiana requires capital resources for:

Following are the amounts of Entergy Louisiana’s planned construction and other capital investments.

Also, in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy Louisiana has ~~$657.2~~$926.6 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.

In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy Louisiana includes specific investments, such as the St. Charles Power Station and Lake Charles Power Station,

As ~~an indirect, majority-owned~~a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy ~~Corporation,~~Utility Holding Company, LLC, Entergy Louisiana pays distributions from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.

In August 2015, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC an application seeking certification that the public necessity and convenience would be served by the construction of the St. Charles Power Station, a nominal 980 megawatt combined-cycle generating unit, on land adjacent to the existing Little Gypsy plant in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. It is currently estimated to cost $869 million to construct, including transmission interconnection and other related costs. Testimony was filed by LPSC staff and intervenors, with LPSC staff concluding that the construction of the project serves the public convenience and necessity. Three intervenors contended that Entergy Louisiana had not established that construction of the project is in the public interest, claiming that the request for proposal excluded consideration of certain resources that could be more cost effective, that the request for proposal provided undue preference to the self-build option, and that a 30-year capacity commitment was not warranted by current supply conditions. The request for proposal independent monitor also filed testimony and a report affirming that the St. Charles Power Station was selected through an objective and fair request for proposal that showed no undue preference to any proposal. An evidentiary hearing was held in April 2016, and in July 2016 an ALJ issued a final recommendation that the LPSC certify that the construction of St. Charles Power Station is in the public interest. The LPSC issued ~~its~~an order approving certification of St. Charles Power Station in December 2016. Construction is in progress and commercial operation is estimated to occur by mid-2019.

In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC seeking certification that the public convenience and necessity would be served by the construction of the Lake Charles Power Station, a nominal 994 megawatt combined-cycle generating unit in Westlake, Louisiana, on land adjacent to the existing Nelson plant in Calcasieu Parish. The current estimated cost of the Lake Charles Power Station is $872 million, including estimated costs of transmission interconnection and other related costs. In May 2017 the parties to the proceeding agreed to an uncontested stipulation finding that construction of the Lake Charles Power Station is in the public interest and authorizing an in-service rate recovery plan. In July 2017 the LPSC issued an order unanimously approving the stipulation and approved certification of the unit. Construction is in progress and commercial operation is expected to occur by mid-2020.

In April 2017, Entergy Louisiana signed a purchase and sale agreement with a subsidiary of Calpine Corporation for the acquisition of a peaking plant. Calpine will construct the plant, which will consist of two natural gas-fired combustion turbine units with a total nominal capacity of approximately 361 MW. The plant, named the Washington Parish Energy Center, will be located in Bogalusa, Louisiana and, subject to permits and approvals, is expected to be completed in 2021. Subject to regulatory approvals, Entergy Louisiana will purchase the plant once it is complete for an estimated total investment of approximately $261 million, including transmission and other related costs. In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC seeking certification of the plant. A procedural schedule has been ~~issued,~~established, with the deadlines recently extended and the hearing continued from March 2018 until June 2018 in order to allow the parties an ~~evidentiary hearing scheduled for May and June 2017. Subject~~opportunity to ~~timely approval by~~reach settlement.

In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application seeking a finding from the LPSC that Entergy Louisiana’s deployment of advanced electric and ~~receipt~~gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. Entergy Louisiana proposed to deploy advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of ~~other permits~~Entergy Louisiana’s modernized power grid. The filing included an estimate of implementation costs for AMI of $330 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and ~~approvals, commercial operation~~unquantified benefits, and Entergy Louisiana provided a cost/benefit analysis showing that its combined electric and gas AMI deployment is ~~estimated~~expected to ~~occur~~produce a nominal net benefit to customers of $607 million. Entergy Louisiana also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $92 million at December 31, 2015, of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Louisiana proposed a 15-year useful life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. The communications network deployment

Entergy Louisiana’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

Entergy Louisiana may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest ~~and distribution~~ rates are favorable.

All debt and common and preferred membership interest issuances by Entergy Louisiana require prior regulatory approval. Preferred membership interest and debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its bond indentures and other agreements. Entergy Louisiana has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.

Entergy Louisiana’s receivables from the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years.

Entergy Louisiana has a credit facility in the amount of $350 million scheduled to expire in August ~~2021.~~2022. The credit facility allows Entergy Louisiana to issue letters of credit against ~~50%~~$15 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, there were no cash borrowings and a ~~$6.4~~$9.1 million letter of credit outstanding under the credit facility. In addition, Entergy Louisiana is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations ~~under~~to MISO. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, a ~~$5.7~~$29.7 million letter of credit was outstanding under Entergy Louisiana’s uncommitted letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the credit facilities.

The Entergy Louisiana nuclear fuel company variable interest entities have two separate credit facilities, one in the amount of $105 million and one in the amount of $85 million, both scheduled to expire in May 2019. As of December 31, ~~2016, $3.8~~2017, $65.7 million of ~~letters of credit~~loans were outstanding under the credit facility to support a like amount of commercial paper issued by the Entergy Louisiana Waterford 3 nuclear fuel company variable interest entity and there were no cash borrowings outstanding under the credit facility for the Entergy Louisiana River Bend nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. As of December 31, 2017, $43.5 million in letters of credit to support a like amount of commercial paper issued and $36.4 million in loans were outstanding under the Entergy Louisiana Waterford nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit ~~facility.~~facilities.

Entergy Louisiana obtained authorizations from the FERC through October ~~2017~~2019 for the following:

In June 2014 the LPSC voted to approve a series of orders which (i) quantified $290.8 million of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs as prudently incurred; (ii) determined $290 million as the level of storm reserves to be re-established; (iii) authorized Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) granted other requested relief associated with storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs. Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation and the Louisiana State Bond Commission. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the August 2014 issuance of bonds under Act 55 of the Louisiana Legislature.

In April 2007, Entergy Louisiana announced that it intended to pursue the solid fuel repowering of a 538 MW unit at its Little Gypsy plant. In March 2009 the LPSC voted in favor of a motion directing Entergy Louisiana to temporarily suspend the repowering project and, based upon an analysis of the project’s economic viability, to make a recommendation regarding whether to proceed with the project. This action was based upon a number of factors including the recent decline in natural gas prices, as well as environmental concerns, the unknown costs of carbon legislation and changes in the capital/financial markets. In April 2009, Entergy Louisiana complied with the LPSC’s directive and recommended that the project be suspended for an extended period of time of three years or more. In May 2009 the LPSC issued an order declaring that Entergy Louisiana’s decision to place the Little Gypsy project into a longer-term suspension of three years or more is in the public interest and prudent.

In October 2009, Entergy Louisiana made a filing with the LPSC seeking permission to cancel the Little Gypsy repowering project and seeking project cost recovery over a five-year period. In June 2010 and August 2010, the LPSC ~~Staff~~staff and ~~Intervenors~~intervenors filed testimony. The LPSC ~~Staff~~staff (1) agreed that it was prudent to move the project from long-term suspension to cancellation and that the timing of the decision to suspend on a longer-term basis was not imprudent; (2) indicated that, except for $0.8 million in compensation-related costs, the costs incurred should be deemed prudent; (3) recommended recovery from customers over ten years but stated that the LPSC may want to consider 15 years; (4) allowed for recovery of carrying costs and earning a return on project costs, but at a reduced rate approximating the cost of debt, while also acknowledging that the LPSC may consider ordering no return; and (5) indicated that Entergy Louisiana should be directed to securitize project costs, if legally feasible and in the public interest. In the third quarter 2010, in accordance with accounting standards, Entergy Louisiana determined that it was probable that the Little Gypsy repowering project would be abandoned and accordingly reclassified $199.8 million of project costs from construction work in progress to a regulatory asset. A hearing on the issues, except for cost allocation among customer classes, was held before the ALJ in November 2010. In January 2011 all parties participated in a mediation on the disputed issues, resulting in a settlement of all disputed issues, including cost recovery and cost allocation. The settlement provides for Entergy Louisiana to recover $200 million as of March 31, 2011, and carrying costs on that amount on specified terms thereafter. The settlement also provides for Entergy Louisiana to recover the approved project costs by securitization. In April 2011, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC to authorize the securitization of the investment recovery costs associated with the project and to issue a financing order by which Entergy Louisiana could accomplish such securitization. In August 2011 the LPSC issued an order approving the settlement and also

The rates that Entergy Louisiana charges for its services significantly influence its financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. Entergy Louisiana is regulated and the rates charged to its customers are determined in regulatory proceedings. A governmental agency, the LPSC, is primarily responsible for approval of the rates charged to customers.

In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint, formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and ~~reflects~~reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue was required. The following adjustments were required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of this proceeding with no changes to rates already implemented.

In May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. The evaluation report ~~reflects~~reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.07%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue iswas required. The following other adjustments, however, ~~are~~were required under the formula

In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana ~~submitted~~filed with the LPSC a request ~~for LPSC authorization~~ to extend the ~~recovery mechanism for net revenues and expenses incurred in connection with Entergy Louisiana’s participation in MISO. The~~ MISO cost recovery mechanism ~~was initially approved on~~rider provision of its formula rate plan. In March 2017 the LPSC staff submitted direct testimony generally supportive of a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism and the intervenor in the proceeding did not

In May 2017, Entergy ~~Louisiana’s test year 2015~~Louisiana filed its formula rate plan ~~filing. A procedural schedule has~~evaluation report for its 2016 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.84%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue was required. Adjustments, however, were required under the formula rate plan; the 2016 formula rate plan evaluation report showed a decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $16.9 million, comprised of a decrease in legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $3.5 million, a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $9.7 million, and a decrease in incremental formula rate plan revenue of $3.7 million. Additionally, the formula rate plan evaluation report called for a decrease of $40.5 million in the MISO cost recovery revenue requirement from the present level of $46.8 million to $6.3 million. Rates reflecting these adjustments were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2017, subject to refund. In September 2017 the LPSC issued its report indicating that no changes to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report were required but reserved for several issues, including Entergy Louisiana’s September 2017 update to its formula rate plan evaluation report.

In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with the LPSC seeking to extend its formula rate plan for three years (2017-2019) with limited modifications to its terms. Those modifications include: a one-time resetting of base rates to the midpoint of the band at Entergy Louisiana’s authorized return on equity of 9.95% for the 2017 test year; narrowing of the formula rate plan bandwidth from a total of 160 basis points to 80 basis points; and a forward-looking mechanism that would allow Entergy Louisiana to recover certain transmission-related costs contemporaneously with when those projects begin delivering benefits to customers. Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC consider its request on an expedited basis, in an effort to maintain Entergy Louisiana’s current cycle for implementing rate adjustments, i.e., September 2018, without the need for filing a full base rate case proceeding. Several parties have intervened in the proceeding and all parties have been ~~established, including a hearing~~participating in ~~July 2017.~~settlement discussions.

Following the completion of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, the LPSC undertook a prudence review in connection with a filing made by Entergy Louisiana in April 2013 with regard to the following aspects of the replacement project: 1) project management; 2) cost controls; 3) success in achieving stated objectives; 4) the costs of the replacement project; and 5) the outage length and replacement power costs. In July 2014 the LPSC ~~Staff~~staff filed testimony recommending potential project and replacement power cost disallowances of up to $71 million, citing a need for further explanation or documentation from Entergy Louisiana. An intervenor filed testimony recommending disallowance of $141 million of incremental project costs, claiming the steam generator fabricator was imprudent. Entergy Louisiana provided further documentation and explanation requested by the LPSC staff. An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2014. At the hearing the parties maintained the positions reflected in pre-filed testimony. Entergy Louisiana believed that the replacement steam generator costs were prudently incurred and applicable legal principles supported their recovery in rates. Nevertheless, Entergy Louisiana recorded a write-off of $16 million of Waterford 3’s plant balance in December 2014 because of the uncertainty at the time associated with the resolution of the prudence review. In December 2015 the ALJ issued a proposed recommendation, which was subsequently finalized, concluding that Entergy Louisiana prudently managed the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project, including the selection, use, and oversight of contractors, and could not reasonably have anticipated the damage to the steam generators. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana was liable for the conduct of its contractor and subcontractor and, therefore, recommended a disallowance of $67 million in capital costs. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Entergy Louisiana did not sufficiently justify the incurrence of $2 million in replacement power costs during the replacement outage. Although the ALJ’s recommendation had not yet been considered by the LPSC, after considering the progress of the proceeding in light of the ALJ recommendation, Entergy

In October 2016 the parties reached a settlement in this matter. ~~This~~The settlement was approved by the LPSC in December 2016. The settlement effectively ~~provides~~provided for an agreed-upon disallowance of $67 million of plant, which had been previously written off by Entergy Louisiana, as discussed above. The ~~settlement also requires a~~ refund to customers of approximately $71 million as a result of the settlement approved by the LPSC was made to ~~be given through a one-time credit included in customers’ bills~~customers in January 2017. Of the $71 million of refunds, $68 million was credited to customers through Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan, outside of sharing, and $3 million through its fuel adjustment clause. Entergy Louisiana had previously recorded a provision of $48 million for this refund. The previously-recorded provision included the cumulative revenues recorded through December 2016 related to the $67 million of disallowed plant. An additional regulatory charge of $23 million was recorded in fourth quarter 2016 to reflect the effects of the settlement. The settlement also ~~provides~~provided that Entergy Louisiana ~~can~~

In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC, which was subsequently approved, that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached. In late-December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $26.8 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate ~~forms~~formed the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. Testimony filed by the LPSC staff generally ~~supports~~supported the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff had questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In October 2016 all parties agreed to a stipulation providing that 100% of Ninemile 6 construction costs was prudently incurred and is eligible for recovery from customers, but reserving the LPSC’s rights to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s actions regarding one element of the project. This stipulation was approved by the LPSC in January 2017.

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

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

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of 10.45% as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which resulted in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that ~~does~~did not affect ~~current year~~the results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015.

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. In March 2016 the LPSC staff issued its report stating that the 2015 gas rate stabilization plan filing was in compliance with the exception of several issues that required additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff had reserved the right to further review. In July 2016 the parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed joint report and motion for entry of order accepting the report that ~~indicates~~indicated no outstanding issues remained in the filing.

In February 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the term of the gas rate stabilization plan in substantially similar form for an additional three-year term and included a request for sharing of non-jurisdictional compressed natural gas revenues. Following discovery and the filing of testimony by the LPSC ~~Staff,~~staff, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC submitted a joint motion for hearing an uncontested stipulated settlement resolving the proceeding. A hearing on the stipulation was held in November 2016. The ALJ issued a report of proceedings that was presented with the parties’ stipulation to the LPSC for consideration. The stipulation approving Entergy Louisiana’s requested extension of the rate stabilization plan was approved by the LPSC in December 2016.

In January 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2016. The filing of the evaluation report for test year 2016 ~~reflects~~reflected an earned return on common equity of 6.37%. As part of the original filing, pursuant to the extraordinary cost provision of the rate stabilization plan, Entergy Louisiana ~~is seeking~~sought to recover approximately $1.5 million in deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. Entergy Louisiana ~~seeks~~requested to recover the prudently incurred August 2016 storm restoration costs over ten years, outside of the rate stabilization plan sharing provisions. As a result, Entergy Louisiana’s filing ~~seeks~~sought an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million. ~~The~~Following review of the filing, ~~is subject to review by~~except for the proposed extraordinary cost recovery, the LPSC staff confirmed Entergy Louisiana’s filing was consistent with ~~resulting~~the principles and requirements of the rate stabilization plan. The extraordinary cost recovery request associated with the 2016 flood-related deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred for gas operations was removed from the rate stabilization plan pending LPSC consideration in a separate docket. In April 2017 the LPSC approved a joint report of proceedings and Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report reflecting a $1.2 million annual increase in revenue with rates ~~to be~~ implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2017.

The following chart reflects the sensitivity of postretirement benefit cost and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation to changes in certain actuarial assumptions (dollars in thousands).

Total qualified pension cost for Entergy ~~Louisiana~~Arkansas in ~~2016~~2017 was ~~$47.1~~$37 million. Entergy ~~Louisiana~~Arkansas anticipates ~~2017~~2018 qualified pension cost to be ~~$44.3~~$43 million. In 2016, Entergy ~~Louisiana~~Arkansas refined its approach to estimating the service cost and interest cost components of qualified pension costs, which had the effect of lowering qualified pension costs by ~~$14.2~~$13.3 million. Entergy ~~Louisiana~~Arkansas contributed ~~$84.4~~$79.6 million to its qualified pension ~~plans~~plan in ~~2016~~2017 and estimates pension contributions will be approximately ~~$87.7~~$64.1 million in ~~2017,~~2018, although the ~~2017~~2018 required pension contributions will be known with more certainty when the January 1, ~~2017~~2018 valuations are completed, which is expected by April 1, ~~2017.~~2018.

Total other postretirement health care and life insurance benefit ~~costs~~income for Entergy ~~Louisiana~~Arkansas in ~~2016 were $15.7~~2017 was $4 million. Entergy ~~Louisiana~~Arkansas expects ~~2017~~2018 postretirement health care and life insurance benefit ~~costs~~income of approximately

See “Qualified Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits - Federal Healthcare Legislation” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of Federal Healthcare Legislation.

See “Other Contingencies” in the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for a discussion of the estimates associated with environmental, litigation, and other risks.

See “New Accounting Pronouncements” section of ~~Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis.~~Note 1 to the financial statements for a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.

Net income decreased $305.7 million primarily due to the effect of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, which resulted in a decrease of $182.6 million in net income in 2017, and the effect of a settlement with the IRS related to the 2010-2011 IRS audit, which resulted in a $136.1 million reduction of income tax expense in 2016. Also contributing to the decrease in net income were higher other operation and maintenance expenses. The decrease was partially offset by higher net revenue and higher other income. See Note 3 to the financial statements for discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the IRS audit.

Net income increased ~~$16.5~~$175.4 million primarily due to the effect of a settlement with the IRS related to the 2010-2011 IRS audit, which resulted in a $136.1 million reduction of income tax expense in 2016. Also contributing to the increase were lower other operation and maintenance expenses, higher net ~~revenues,~~revenue, and ~~a lower effective income tax rate, partially offset by~~ higher ~~depreciation and amortization expenses.~~

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and ~~lower~~gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory charges (credits). Following is an analysis of the change in net ~~revenue.~~revenue comparing 2017 to 2016.

The regulatory credit resulting from reduction of the federal corporate income tax rate variance is due to the reduction of the Vidalia purchased power agreement regulatory liability by $30.5 million and the reduction of the Louisiana Act 55 financing savings obligation regulatory liabilities by $25 million as a result of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, which lowered the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are discussed further in Note 3 to the financial statements.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to an increase in formula rate plan revenues, implemented with the first billing cycle of March 2016, to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement related to the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station in March 2016 and a provision recorded in 2016 related to the settlement of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion of the ~~new nuclear generation development costs~~formula rate plan revenues and the ~~joint stipulation.~~Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding.

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

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to the effect of less favorable weather on residential and commercial sales and decreased usage during the unbilled sales period. The decrease was partially offset by an increase of 1,237 GWh, or 4%, in industrial usage primarily due to an increase in demand from existing customers and expansion projects in the chemicals industry.

Net revenue consists of operating revenues net of: 1) fuel, fuel-related expenses, and gas purchased for resale, 2) purchased power expenses, and 3) other regulatory ~~charges (credits).~~charges. Following is an analysis of the change in net revenue comparing 2016 to 2015.

The retail electric price variance is primarily due to ~~a $16 million net annual~~an increase in formula rate plan revenues, ~~effective February 2015, as a result~~implemented with the first billing cycle of March 2016, to collect the estimated first-year revenue requirement related to the purchase of Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the ~~MPSC order~~Union Power Station. See Note 2 to the financial statements for further discussion.

The volume/weather variance is primarily due to the effect of less favorable weather on residential sales, partially offset by an increase in ~~the June 2014 rate case~~industrial usage and an increase in ~~revenues collected through~~volume during the ~~energy efficiency rider, partially~~unbilled period. The increase in industrial usage is primarily due to increased demand from new customers and expansion projects, primarily in the chemicals industry.

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

Included in Other is a provision of $23 million recorded in 2016 related to the settlement of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence review proceeding, offset by a ~~decrease~~provision of $32 million recorded in ~~revenues collected through~~2015 related to the ~~storm damage rider. The rate case included~~uncertainty at that time associated with the ~~realignment~~resolution of ~~certain costs from collection in riders to base rates.~~the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator prudence

Taxes other than income taxes increased primarily due to increases in ad valorem taxes, state franchise taxes, and payroll taxes. Ad valorem taxes increased primarily due to higher assessments, including the assessment of Arkansas ad valorem taxes on the Union Power Station beginning in 2017. State franchise taxes increased primarily due to a ~~discussion~~change in the Louisiana franchise tax law which became effective for 2017.

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the ~~System Agreement.~~

Other ~~Income Statement Variances~~income increased primarily due to an increase in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2017, which includes the St. Charles Power Station project, and higher realized gains in 2017 on the River Bend decommissioning trust fund investments, including portfolio rebalancing to the 30% interest in River Bend formerly owned by Cajun.

Interest expense decreased primarily due to an increase in the allowance for borrowed funds used during construction due to higher construction work in progress in 2017, which includes the St. Charles Power Station project.

Nuclear refueling outage expenses increased primarily due to the amortization of higher expenses associated with the refueling outages at Waterford 3.

Other operation and maintenance expenses decreased primarily due to:

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily due to additions to plant in service, including Power Blocks 3 and 4 of the Union Power Station purchased in March 2016.

Other income increased primarily due to an increase in the allowance for equity funds used during construction due to higher ~~depreciation rates~~construction work in ~~2015, as approved~~progress in 2016, which included the St. Charles Power Station project, and increased distribution and transmission spending. The increase was also due to higher income in 2016 on the River Bend and Waterford 3 decommissioning trust fund investments.

Interest expense increased primarily due to:

The effective income tax rates for 2017, 2016, and 2015 ~~and 2014~~ were ~~36.9%~~60.5%, ~~40.0%~~12.6%, and ~~42.7%~~28.6%, respectively. The difference in the effective income tax rate of 60.5% for 2017 versus the statutory rate of 35% for 2017 was primarily due to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed by President Trump in December 2017, which changed the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective in 2018. See Note 3 to the financial statements for further discussion of the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The difference in the effective income tax rate of 12.6% for 2016 versus the statutory rate of 35% for 2016 was primarily due to the reversal of a portion of the provision for uncertain tax positions as a result of the settlement of the 2010-2011 IRS audit in the second quarter 2016 and book and tax differences related to the non-taxable income distributions earned on preferred membership interests, partially offset by state income taxes. See Note 3 to the financial statements for a reconciliation of the federal statutory rate of 35% to the effective income tax rates.

See the “Income Tax Legislation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis for discussion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal income tax legislation enacted in December 2017. Note 3 to the financial statements contains additional discussion of the effect of the Act on 2017 results of operations and financial position, the provisions of the Act, and the uncertainties associated with accounting for the Act, and Note 2 to the financial statements discusses proceedings commenced or other responses by Entergy’s regulators to the Act.

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, ~~2015,~~ and ~~2014~~2015 were as follows:

Net cash flow provided by operating activities decreased $117.6 million in 2016 primarily due to:

Decreases in Entergy ~~Mississippi’s~~Louisiana’s receivable from the money pool are a source of cash flow, and Entergy ~~Mississippi’s~~Louisiana’s receivable from the money pool decreased by ~~$15.3~~$11.3 million in ~~2016~~2017 compared to increasing by ~~$25.3~~$16.3 million in ~~2015.~~2016. The money pool is an inter-company borrowing arrangement designed to reduce the Utility subsidiaries’ need for external short-term borrowings.

Net cash flow used in investing activities increased ~~$67.4~~$479.9 million in ~~2015~~2016 primarily due to:

Net cash flow provided by financing activities decreased $343 million in 2017 primarily due to the net issuance of $325.6 million of long-term debt in 2017 compared to the net issuance of $961.2 million in 2016. The decrease was partially offset by:

Entergy ~~Mississippi’s~~Louisiana’s financing activities provided ~~$8.4~~$614.9 million of cash in 2016 compared to using ~~$43.2~~$446.7 million in 2015 primarily due to the following activity:

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

Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana seeks to optimize its capital structure in accordance with its regulatory requirements and to control its cost of capital while also maintaining equity capitalization at a level consistent with investment-grade debt ratings. To the extent that operating cash flows are in excess of planned investments, cash may be used to reduce outstanding debt or may be paid as a dividend, or both, in appropriate amounts to maintain the targeted capital structure. To the extent that operating cash flows are insufficient to support planned investments, Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana may issue incremental debt or reduce dividends, or both, to maintain its targeted capital structure. In addition, in certain infrequent circumstances, such as large transactions that would materially alter the capital structure if financed entirely with debt and reducing dividends, Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana may receive equity contributions to maintain the targeted capital structure.

Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana requires capital resources for:

Following are the amounts of Entergy ~~Mississippi’s~~Louisiana’s planned construction and other capital investments.

Also, in addition to the contractual obligations, Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana has ~~$9.8~~$926.6 million of unrecognized tax benefits and interest net of unused tax attributes for which the timing of payments beyond 12 months cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties in the timing of effective settlement of tax positions. See Note 3 to the financial statements for additional information regarding unrecognized tax benefits.

In addition to routine capital spending to maintain operations, the planned capital investment estimate for Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana includes ~~amounts associated with~~ specific investments, such as the St. Charles Power Station and Lake Charles Power Station, each discussed below; transmission projects to enhance reliability, reduce congestion, and enable economic growth; distribution spending to enhance reliability and improve service to customers, including ~~initial~~ investment to support advanced metering; resource planning, including potential generation projects; system improvements; investments in River Bend and Waterford 3; and other investments. ~~Estimated~~Entergy’s Utility supply plan initiative will continue to seek to transform its generation portfolio with new or repowered generation resources. Opportunities resulting from the supply plan initiative, including new projects or the exploration of alternative financing sources, could result in increases or decreases in the capital expenditure estimates given above. The estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints and requirements,

As a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Utility Holding Company, LLC, Entergy Louisiana pays distributions from its earnings at a percentage determined monthly.

In August 2015, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC an application seeking certification that the public necessity and convenience would be served by the construction of the St. Charles Power Station, a nominal 980 megawatt combined-cycle generating unit, on ~~long-term debt and preferred stock maturities in Notes 5 and 6~~land adjacent to the ~~financial statements.~~existing Little Gypsy plant in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. It is currently estimated to cost $869 million to construct, including transmission interconnection and other related costs. The LPSC issued an order approving certification of St. Charles Power Station in December 2016. Construction is in progress and commercial operation is estimated to occur by mid-2019.

In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC seeking certification that the public convenience and necessity would be served by the construction of the Lake Charles Power Station, a nominal 994 megawatt combined-cycle generating unit in Westlake, Louisiana, on land adjacent to the existing Nelson plant in Calcasieu Parish. The current estimated cost of the Lake Charles Power Station is $872 million, including estimated costs of transmission interconnection and other related costs. In May 2017 the parties to the proceeding agreed to an uncontested stipulation finding that construction of the Lake Charles Power Station is in the public interest and authorizing an in-service rate recovery plan. In July 2017 the LPSC issued an order unanimously approving the stipulation and approved certification of the unit. Construction is in progress and commercial operation is expected to occur by mid-2020.

In April 2017, Entergy Louisiana signed a purchase and sale agreement with a subsidiary of Calpine Corporation for the acquisition of a peaking plant. Calpine will construct the plant, which will consist of two natural gas-fired combustion turbine units with a total nominal capacity of approximately 361 MW. The plant, named the Washington Parish Energy Center, will be located in Bogalusa, Louisiana and, subject to permits and approvals, is expected to be completed in 2021. Subject to regulatory approvals, Entergy Louisiana will purchase the plant once it is complete for an estimated total investment of approximately $261 million, including transmission and other related costs. In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC seeking certification of the plant. A procedural schedule has been established, with the deadlines recently extended and the hearing continued from March 2018 until June 2018 in order to allow the parties an opportunity to reach settlement.

In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed an application seeking a finding from the LPSC that Entergy Louisiana’s deployment of advanced electric and gas metering infrastructure is in the public interest. Entergy Louisiana proposed to deploy advanced meters that enable two-way data communication; design and build a secure and reliable network to support such communications; and implement support systems. AMI is intended to serve as the foundation of Entergy Louisiana’s modernized power grid. The filing included an estimate of implementation costs for AMI of $330 million. The filing identified a number of quantified and unquantified benefits, and Entergy Louisiana provided a cost/benefit analysis showing that its combined electric and gas AMI deployment is expected to produce a nominal net benefit to customers of $607 million. Entergy Louisiana also sought to continue to include in rate base the remaining book value, approximately $92 million at December 31, 2015, of the existing electric meters and also to depreciate those assets using current depreciation rates. Entergy Louisiana proposed a 15-year useful life for the new advanced meters, the three-year deployment of which is expected to begin in 2019. The communications network deployment

Entergy ~~Mississippi’s~~Louisiana’s sources to meet its capital requirements include:

Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana may refinance, redeem, or otherwise retire debt ~~and preferred stock~~ prior to maturity, to the extent market conditions and interest ~~and dividend~~ rates are favorable.

All debt and common and preferred ~~stock~~membership interest issuances by Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana require prior regulatory approval. Preferred ~~stock~~membership interest and debt issuances are also subject to issuance tests set forth in its ~~corporate charter,~~ bond ~~indenture,~~indentures and other agreements. Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana has sufficient capacity under these tests to meet its foreseeable capital needs.

Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana has ~~four separate~~a credit ~~facilities~~facility in the ~~aggregate~~ amount of ~~$102.5~~$350 million scheduled to expire ~~May 2017. No~~in August 2022. The credit facility allows Entergy Louisiana to issue letters of credit against $15 million of the borrowing capacity of the facility. As of December 31, 2017, there were no cash borrowings ~~were~~and a $9.1 million letter of credit outstanding under the credit ~~facilities as of December 31, 2016.~~facility. In addition, Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana is a party to an uncommitted letter of credit facility as a means to post collateral to support its obligations ~~under~~to MISO. As of December 31, ~~2016,~~2017, a ~~$7.1~~$29.7 million letter of credit was outstanding under Entergy ~~Mississippi’s~~Louisiana’s uncommitted letter of credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the credit facilities.

The Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana nuclear fuel company variable interest entities have two separate credit facilities, one in the amount of $105 million and one in the amount of $85 million, both scheduled to expire in May 2019. As of December 31, 2017, $65.7 million of loans were outstanding under the credit facility for the Entergy Louisiana River Bend nuclear fuel company variable interest entity. As of December 31, 2017, $43.5 million in letters of credit to support a like amount of commercial paper issued and $36.4 million in loans were outstanding under the Entergy Louisiana Waterford nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facility. See Note 4 to the financial statements for additional discussion of the nuclear fuel company variable interest entity credit facilities.

Entergy Louisiana obtained authorizations from the FERC through October ~~2017~~2019 for the following:

In June 2014 the LPSC voted to approve a series of orders which (i) quantified $290.8 million of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs as prudently incurred; (ii) determined $290 million as the level of storm reserves to be re-established; (iii) authorized Entergy Louisiana to utilize Louisiana Act 55 financing for Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs; and (iv) granted other requested relief associated with storm reserves and Act 55 financing of Hurricane Isaac system restoration costs. Entergy Louisiana committed to pass on to customers a minimum of $30.8 million of customer benefits through annual customer credits of approximately $6.2 million for five years. Approvals for the Act 55 financings were obtained from the Louisiana Utilities Restoration Corporation and the Louisiana State Bond Commission. See Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of the August 2014 issuance of bonds under Act 55 of the Louisiana Legislature.

In April 2007, Entergy Louisiana announced that it intended to pursue the solid fuel repowering of a 538 MW unit at its Little Gypsy plant. In March 2009 the LPSC voted in favor of a motion directing Entergy Louisiana to temporarily suspend the repowering project and, based upon an analysis of the project’s economic viability, to make a recommendation regarding whether to proceed with the project. This action was based upon a number of factors including the recent decline in natural gas prices, as well as environmental concerns, the unknown costs of carbon legislation and changes in the capital/financial markets. In April 2009, Entergy Louisiana complied with the LPSC’s directive and recommended that the project be suspended for an extended period of time of three years or more. In May 2009 the LPSC issued an order declaring that Entergy Louisiana’s decision to place the Little Gypsy project into a longer-term suspension of three years or more is in the public interest and prudent.

In October 2009, Entergy Louisiana made a filing with the LPSC seeking permission to cancel the Little Gypsy repowering project and seeking project cost recovery over a five-year period. In June 2010 and August 2010, the LPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony. The LPSC staff (1) agreed that it was prudent to move the project from long-term suspension to cancellation and that the timing of the decision to suspend on a longer-term basis was not imprudent; (2) indicated that, except for $0.8 million in compensation-related costs, the costs incurred should be deemed prudent; (3) recommended recovery from customers over ten years but stated that the LPSC may want to consider 15 years; (4) allowed for recovery of carrying costs and earning a return on project costs, but at a reduced rate approximating the cost of debt, while also acknowledging that the LPSC may consider ordering no return; and (5) indicated that Entergy Louisiana should be directed to securitize project costs, if legally feasible and in the public interest. In the third quarter 2010, in accordance with accounting standards, Entergy Louisiana determined that it was probable that the Little Gypsy repowering project would be abandoned and accordingly reclassified $199.8 million of project costs from construction work in progress to a regulatory asset. A hearing on the issues, except for cost allocation among customer classes, was held before the ALJ in November 2010. In January 2011 all parties participated in a mediation on the disputed issues, resulting in a settlement of all disputed issues, including cost recovery and cost allocation. The settlement provides for Entergy Louisiana to recover $200 million as of March 31, 2011, and carrying costs on that amount on specified terms thereafter. The settlement also provides for Entergy Louisiana to recover the approved project costs by securitization. In April 2011, Entergy Louisiana filed an application with the LPSC to authorize the securitization of the investment recovery costs associated with the project and to issue a financing order by which Entergy Louisiana could accomplish such securitization. In August 2011 the LPSC issued an order approving the settlement and also

The rates that Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana charges for ~~electricity~~its services significantly influence its financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. Entergy ~~Mississippi~~Louisiana is regulated and the rates charged to its customers are determined in regulatory proceedings. A governmental agency, the ~~MPSC,~~LPSC, is primarily responsible for approval of the rates charged to customers.

In connection with the approval of the business combination of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana, the LPSC authorized the filing of a single, joint, formula rate plan evaluation report for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s and Entergy Louisiana’s 2014 calendar year operations. The joint evaluation report was filed in September 2015 and reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.09%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue was required. The following adjustments were required under the formula rate plan, however: a decrease in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Louisiana of $17.8 million; an increase in the additional capacity mechanism for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana of $4.3 million; and a reduction of $5.5 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism to collect approximately $35.7 million on a combined-company basis. Under the order approving the business combination, following completion of the prescribed review period, rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of December 2015, subject to refund. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of this proceeding with no changes to rates already implemented.

In May 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2015 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.07%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue was required. The following other adjustments, however, were required under the formula rate plan: an increase in the legacy Entergy Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $14.2 million; a separate increase in legacy Entergy Louisiana revenue of $10 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; an increase in the legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana additional capacity mechanism of $0.5 million; a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana revenue of $58.7 million primarily to reflect the effects of the termination of the System Agreement; and an increase of $11 million to the MISO cost recovery mechanism. Rates were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2016, subject to refund. Following implementation of the as-filed rates in September 2016, there were several interim updates to Entergy Louisiana’s formula rate plan, including the one submitted in December 2016, reflecting implementation of the settlement of the Waterford 3 replacement steam generator project prudence review described below. In June 2017 the LPSC staff and Entergy Louisiana filed a joint report of proceedings, which was accepted by the LPSC in June 2017, finalizing the results of the May 2016 evaluation report, interim updates, and corresponding proceedings with no changes to rates already implemented.

In November 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC a request to extend the MISO cost recovery mechanism rider provision of its formula rate plan. In March 2017 the LPSC staff submitted direct testimony generally supportive of a one-year extension of the MISO cost recovery mechanism and the intervenor in the proceeding did not

In May 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed its formula rate plan evaluation report for its 2016 calendar year operations. The evaluation report reflected an earned return on common equity of 9.84%. As such, no adjustment to base formula rate plan revenue was required. Adjustments, however, were required under the formula rate plan; the 2016 formula rate plan evaluation report showed a decrease in formula rate plan revenue of approximately $16.9 million, comprised of a decrease in legacy Entergy Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $3.5 million, a decrease in legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana formula rate plan revenue of $9.7 million, and a decrease in incremental formula rate plan revenue of $3.7 million. Additionally, the formula rate plan evaluation report called for a decrease of $40.5 million in the MISO cost recovery revenue requirement from the present level of $46.8 million to $6.3 million. Rates reflecting these adjustments were implemented with the first billing cycle of September 2017, subject to refund. In September 2017 the LPSC issued its report indicating that no changes to Entergy Louisiana’s original formula rate plan evaluation report were required but reserved for several issues, including Entergy Louisiana’s September 2017 update to its formula rate plan evaluation report.

In August 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed a request with the LPSC seeking to extend its formula rate plan for three years (2017-2019) with limited modifications to its terms. Those modifications include: a one-time resetting of base rates to the midpoint of the band at Entergy Louisiana’s authorized return on equity of 9.95% for the 2017 test year; narrowing of the formula rate plan bandwidth from a total of 160 basis points to 80 basis points; and a forward-looking mechanism that would allow Entergy Louisiana to recover certain transmission-related costs contemporaneously with when those projects begin delivering benefits to customers. Entergy Louisiana requested that the LPSC consider its request on an expedited basis, in an effort to maintain Entergy Louisiana’s current cycle for implementing rate adjustments, i.e., September 2018, without the need for filing a full base rate case proceeding. Several parties have intervened in the proceeding and all parties have been participating in settlement discussions.

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

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

In July 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Louisiana filed an unopposed stipulation with the LPSC, which was subsequently approved, that estimated a first year revenue requirement associated with Ninemile 6 and provided a mechanism to update the revenue requirement as the in-service date approached. In late-December 2014, roughly contemporaneous with the unit's placement in service, a final updated estimated revenue requirement of $26.8 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and $51.1 million for Entergy Louisiana was filed. The December 2014 estimate formed the basis of rates implemented effective with the first billing cycle of January 2015. In July 2015, Entergy Louisiana submitted to the LPSC a compliance filing including an estimate at completion, inclusive of interconnection costs and transmission upgrades, of approximately $648 million, or $76 million less than originally estimated, along with other project details and supporting evidence, to enable the LPSC to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s management of the project. Testimony filed by the LPSC staff generally supported the prudence of the management of the project and recovery of the costs incurred to complete the project. The LPSC staff had questioned the warranty coverage for one element of the project. In October 2016 all parties agreed to a stipulation providing that 100% of Ninemile 6 construction costs was prudently incurred and is eligible for recovery from customers, but reserving the LPSC’s rights to review the prudence of Entergy Louisiana’s actions regarding one element of the project. This stipulation was approved by the LPSC in January 2017.

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

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

In accordance with the settlement of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2012, in August 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana submitted for consideration a proposal for implementation of an infrastructure rider to recover expenditures associated with strategic plant investment and relocation projects mandated by local governments. After review by the LPSC staff and inclusion of certain customer safeguards required by the LPSC staff, in December 2014, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and the LPSC staff submitted a joint settlement for implementation of an accelerated gas pipe replacement program providing for the replacement of approximately 100 miles of pipe over the next ten years, as well as relocation of certain existing pipe resulting from local government-related infrastructure projects, and for a rider to recover the investment associated with these projects. The rider allows for recovery of approximately $65 million over ten years. The rider recovery will be adjusted on a quarterly basis to include actual investment incurred for the prior quarter and is subject to the following conditions, among others: a ten-year term; application of any earnings in excess of 10.45% as an offset to the revenue requirement of the infrastructure rider; adherence to a specified spending plan, within plus or minus 20% annually; annual filings comparing actual versus planned rider spending with actual spending and explanation of variances exceeding 10%; and an annual true-up. The joint settlement was approved by the LPSC in January 2015. Implementation of the infrastructure rider commenced with bills rendered on and after the first billing cycle of April 2015.

In January 2015, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2014. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 7.20%, which resulted in a $706 thousand rate increase. In April 2015 the LPSC issued findings recommending two adjustments to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s as-filed results, and an additional recommendation that did not affect the results. The LPSC staff’s recommended adjustments increase the earned return on equity for the test year to 7.24%. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana accepted the LPSC staff’s recommendations and a revenue increase of $688 thousand was implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2015.

In January 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2015. The filing showed an earned return on common equity of 10.22%, which is within the authorized bandwidth, therefore requiring no change in rates. In March 2016 the LPSC staff issued its report stating that the 2015 gas rate stabilization plan filing was in compliance with the exception of several issues that required additional information, explanation, or clarification for which the LPSC staff had reserved the right to further review. In July 2016 the parties to the proceeding filed an unopposed joint report and motion for entry of order accepting the report that indicated no outstanding issues remained in the filing.

In February 2016, Entergy Louisiana filed a motion requesting to extend the term of the gas rate stabilization plan in substantially similar form for an additional three-year term and included a request for sharing of non-jurisdictional compressed natural gas revenues. Following discovery and the filing of testimony by the LPSC staff, Entergy Louisiana and the LPSC submitted a joint motion for hearing an uncontested stipulated settlement resolving the proceeding. A hearing on the stipulation was held in November 2016. The ALJ issued a report of proceedings that was presented with the parties’ stipulation to the LPSC for consideration. The stipulation approving Entergy Louisiana’s requested extension of the rate stabilization plan was approved by the LPSC in December 2016.

In January 2017, Entergy Louisiana filed with the LPSC its gas rate stabilization plan for the test year ended September 30, 2016. The filing of the evaluation report for test year 2016 reflected an earned return on common equity of 6.37%. As part of the original filing, pursuant to the extraordinary cost provision of the rate stabilization plan, Entergy Louisiana sought to recover approximately $1.5 million in deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred to restore service and repair damage resulting from flooding and widespread rainfall in southeast Louisiana that occurred in August 2016. Entergy Louisiana requested to recover the prudently incurred August 2016 storm restoration costs over ten years, outside of the rate stabilization plan sharing provisions. As a result, Entergy Louisiana’s filing sought an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million. Following review of the filing, except for the proposed extraordinary cost recovery, the LPSC staff confirmed Entergy Louisiana’s filing was consistent with the principles and requirements of the rate stabilization plan. The extraordinary cost recovery request associated with the 2016 flood-related deferred operation and maintenance expenses incurred for gas operations was removed from the rate stabilization plan pending LPSC consideration in a separate docket. In April 2017 the LPSC approved a joint report of proceedings and Entergy Louisiana submitted a revised evaluation report reflecting a $1.2 million annual increase in revenue with rates implemented with the first billing cycle of May 2017.

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

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

Entergy Louisiana recovers electric fuel and purchased power costs for the billing month based upon the level of such costs incurred two months prior to the billing month. Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustments include

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

In December 2011 the LPSC authorized its staff to initiate a proceeding to audit the fuel adjustment clause filings of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and its affiliates. The audit included a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed by Entergy Gulf States Louisiana through its fuel adjustment clause for the period 2005 through 2009. In March 2016 the LPSC staff consultant issued its audit report. In its report, the LPSC staff consultant recommended that Entergy Louisiana refund approximately $8.6 million, plus interest, to customers and realign the recovery of approximately $12.7 million from Entergy Gulf States Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause to base rates. In September 2016 the LPSC staff filed testimony stating that it was no longer recommending a disallowance of $3.4 million of the $8.6 million discussed above, but otherwise maintained positions from its report. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement, which was approved by the LPSC in November 2016. The settlement recognized the dry cask storage recovery method issue, which was addressed in the separate proceeding approved by the LPSC in October 2017, provided for a refund of $5 million, which was made to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers in December 2016, and resolved all other issues raised in the audit.

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

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

In June 2016 the LPSC staff provided notice of audits of Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause filings and purchased gas adjustment clause filings. In recognition of the business combination that occurred in 2015, the audit notice was issued to Entergy Louisiana and will also include a review of charges to legacy Entergy Gulf States Louisiana customers prior to the business combination. The audit includes a review of the reasonableness of charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s fuel adjustment clause for the period from 2014 through 2015 and charges flowed through Entergy Louisiana’s purchased gas adjustment clause for the period from 2012 through 2015. Discovery commenced in March 2017. No report of audit has been issued.

Due to higher fuel costs for the operating month of January 2018 resulting in part from recent cold weather, higher Henry Hub prices, and an increase in total fuel and purchased power costs, Entergy Louisiana plans to cap the

Entergy Louisiana’s large industrial and commercial customers continually explore ways to reduce their energy costs. In particular, cogeneration is an option available to a portion of Entergy Louisiana’s industrial customer base. Entergy Louisiana responds by working with industrial and commercial customers and negotiating electric service contracts to provide competitive rates that match specific customer needs and load profiles. Entergy Louisiana actively participates in economic development, customer retention, and reclamation activities to increase industrial and commercial demand, from both new and existing customers.

See the “Rate, Cost-recovery, and Other Regulation– Federal Regulation” section of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the financial statements for a discussion of federal regulation.

In ~~June 2014,~~August 2012 the MPSC opened inquiries to review whether the current formulaic methodology used to calculate the return on common equity in both Entergy Mississippi’s formula rate plan and Mississippi ~~filed its first~~Power Company’s annual formula rate plan was still appropriate or could be improved to better serve the public interest. The intent of this inquiry and review was for informational purposes only; the evaluation of any recommendations for changes to the existing methodology would take place in a general rate case or in the existing formula rate plan docket. In March 2013 the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff filed its consultant’s report which noted the return on common equity estimation methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company are commonly used throughout the electric utility industry. The report suggested ways in which the methods used by Entergy Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company might be improved, but did not recommend specific changes in the return on common equity formulas

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

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